The Silver Lining of the Left in Power

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
While some here may live in a world of dreams and fairy dust, most of us have to work for a living, want to raise our children right and wish for liberty and economic opportunity for all.

We elect our government officials to represent the common good. Sorely disappointing, we see only a government representative of special interests.

Each Administration has a particular character. Some are bold, others timid. Some shoot for breakthroughs and great things, others wimper under the challenge, uncertain and dissolute.

We are now approaching the end of the first year of the Obama Administration. Not surprisingly, it is highly representative of the Left, and almost not at all of the Right.

But some people, let's call them "Independents," are shocked! Shocked, I say! that the Obama Administration is so damn liberal.

They had listened to the soporific speeches, the dulcet tones, the seductive turns of phrase meant to mean whatever it is you thought he might mean. An ever optimistic bunch, Americans voted the Left into power.

Now, the price is being paid for optimism and naivete. And the somnolescent masses are awakening to a brave new world. And they are shocked. Shocked, I say!

***************

The Silver Lining of the Left in Power
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

There may be a major silver lining for conservatives and for America's future thanks to the foreign and domestic policies of President Obama and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate: For the first time in their lives, millions of Americans are coming to understand the left.

It is difficult to overstate how important this is. For decades, the left has largely controlled the news media, the arts, the universities and the entertainment media. And vast numbers of Americans have imbibed these leftist messages and the leftist critiques of conservatives. What these Americans have never been able to do is to see what the left would actually do if in power.

Of course, all one had to do was look at California and see how a left-wing legislature brought the country's largest state economy to near insolvency and bankruptcy, chased away many of its most productive citizens, and wasted tens of billions of dollars thanks in large measure to union domination of the state's politics.

But most Americans do not observe other states. Most Americans are preoccupied with their lives and, unfortunately, with what is on television.

Now, this has all changed. Americans are watching California enacted on the national stage.

And it is scaring all but the ideologically committed left -- a rather small, if profoundly influential and powerful, minority. This is why last week, Gallup reported an extraordinarily dramatic and quick shift of independent voters' electoral preferences. In the Gallup Poll's words: "Over the course of the year, independents' preference for the Republican candidate in their districts has grown, from a 1-point advantage in July to the current 22-point gap."

In half a year, there has been a 23 percent shift from Democrats to Republicans among independent voters. And nothing particularly bad had occurred -- no further economic meltdown, no terrorist attack from abroad (the Poll preceded the Fort Hood attack).

Now Americans see the left's policies for what they are:

1. The left wants America to abandon its defining commitment to individualism and replace it with a European-style nanny, or welfare, state. At most Americans' core is an abiding belief that we are supposed to take care of ourselves, our families and our neighbors, and not rely on the state to do so.

2. The left is naive about evil. Most Americans deemed Communism evil; the left ridiculed President Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and often undermined the fight against the Communist world. So, too, the left is naive about Islamic terror and undermines the fight against it.

The smoking gun was the nearly universal denial by the left that his Islamic beliefs had anything to do with Maj. Nidal Hasan's mass murder of fellow servicemen at Fort Hood. One of many examples was this reaction to the shootings by Evan Thomas, Editor at Large at Newsweek: "I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label (Muslim) attached to him, it will get the right wing going..."

3. The left is more interested in redistributing wealth than in creating it. This should have been as obvious to Americans as the brightness of the sun. Finally, Americans are coming to realize that the left's goal is now, as it always has been, equality, not prosperity.

4. The left is far more interested in power than the right is. This, too, should have been self-evident, but finally, people are realizing that those who are preoccupied with creating an ever-expanding state are obviously far more interested in amassing power than those who want a smaller state.

5. The left is preoccupied with America being loved, and in pursuit of that end, compromises some of America's core values. Examples abound here, too. To cite a few: the Obama administration's neglect of those in Iran risking their lives for freedom in that tyranny; the administration's refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama when the Tibetan leader visited Washington, lest the president annoy China's dictators; the American government siding with Hugo Chavez against the Honduran government, which had legally removed a Chavez clone from the Honduran presidency; and the president's obsequious apologies for America wherever he goes.

A motto of my radio show and of my life is "Clarity is our friend." It is certainly so here. Clarity about the left will be a blessing to America.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Another factually challenged ultra right wing editorial posted by PJABBER.

Facts and more facts, for those not keeping score. They are just so tasty and delicious...

Obama's Radical Rogues Gallery
Phyllis Schlafly
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Another kooky Barack Obama appointee became publicly known this month and quickly was thrown or voluntarily threw herself under the bus. Anita Dunn, the White House communications director (who led Obama's war on Fox News), said that Mao Zedong was one of her two favorite "political philosophers" whom "I turn to most" for answers to important questions.

History identifies Mao as a ruthless savage, not as a philosopher. He probably holds the record for ordering the mass murder of more people (50 million to 100 million) than anyone else in history.

Dunn tried to claim that her statement was a joke, but anyone can look at her actual statement on Youtube and see that she spoke in deadly earnest. Dunn was part of Obama's inner circle and a senior media adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Dunn's husband, Bob Bauer, an expert on campaign financing, fundraising and voter mobilization, is Obama's personal lawyer. He has just been appointed White House counsel, where he will be in charge of vetting Obama's appointees.

Obama's green jobs czar, Van Jones, had to exit in disgrace after he admitted that "I was a Communist." We can thank Glenn Beck for exposing him.

Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 in which he declared that the government "owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission." So, after the death consultants authorized in Nancy Pelosi's health care bill convince you to reject life-saving procedures, the organ-transplant team can remove your body's organs immediately.

Czar Sunstein also argues that animals are entitled to have lawyers to sue humans in court. Bow, wow -- more business for trial lawyers. His wife, Samantha Power, is now on Obama's National Security Council. She is famous for writing a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about genocide, which she defined so narrowly that it excluded Joseph Stalin and Mao.

Obama's nominee for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, signed a 2006 manifesto endorsing polygamous households. This lengthy document, called "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage," argues that traditional marriage should not be "privileged above all others."

Obama's education appointments, who came out of the Chicago political machine right along with Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, will have nearly $100 billion in new money to indoctrinate America's youth. Obama Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is notorious for trying to start a gay high school in Chicago.

Obama's safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings, founded the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist group that now has thousands of chapters at high schools across the nation.

GLSEN chapters and materials have promoted sex between young teens and adults and sponsored "field trips" to gay pride parades. Jennings was the keynote speaker at a notorious GLSEN conference at Tufts University in 2000 at which HIV-AIDS coordinators discussed in detail, before an audience including area high school students, how to perform various homosexual acts.

Obama's science czar wrote in a college textbook that compulsory "green abortions" are an acceptable way to control population growth. We assume that what makes an abortion green is when the motive for the killing is population control to serve environmentalist dogma.

Affirmative action is in vogue in Obama's administration: His diversity czar has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to "step down" in favor of minorities. Obama's first appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court is a woman who said repeatedly that a "Latina woman" would make better judicial decisions than "a white male."

Obama's top lawyer at the State Department, Harold Hongju Koh, calls himself a transnationalist. That means wanting U.S. courts to "domesticate" foreign and international law -- i.e., integrate it into U.S. domestic law binding on U.S. citizens.

Koh is eager to put us under a global legal system that would diminish our "distinctive rights culture" such as due process, trial by jury and our First Amendment "protections for speech and religion" that give "far greater emphasis and judicial protection in America than in Europe or Asia." Under global governance, the United States will be forbidden to allow more freedom and constitutional rights than other countries.

When Obama's appointee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, David Hamilton, was a district court judge, he prohibited the Indiana State Legislature from giving an invocation that mentioned Jesus, while mention of Allah was allowed. Hamilton worked for ACORN and the ACLU, and even the liberal American Bar Association rated him "not qualified."

And we thought the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was an embarrassment to Barack Obama when he was running for president! We never dreamed Obama would actually appoint such a collection of weirdos.

**************

If Phyllis Schlafly never dreamed that President Obama would appoint such a collection of weirdos, who am I to find fault with any "Independent" for being taken in?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,758
54,781
136
Ahahaha, now PJABBER is quoting the mother of the guy who founded Conservapedia.

You are truly the gift that keeps on giving.

In case anyone doesn't know the gigantic bucket of crazy that this lady's family is responsible for, please check out www.conservapedia.com . I highly recommend the articles on evolution and homosexuality.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Ahahaha, now PJABBER is quoting the mother of the guy who founded Conservapedia.

You are truly the gift that keeps on giving.

In case anyone doesn't know the gigantic bucket of crazy that this lady's family is responsible for, please check out www.conservapedia.com . I highly recommend the articles on evolution and homosexuality.

I have to laugh at each post getting an ad hominem response from you with nary a challenge to the substance!

It is a good day to reflect on the travesty of "modern welfare liberalism!"

Consider this and quake in your pointy toed boots - the end is nigh!

*****************

Five Terrible Cruelties of Liberalism
John Hawkins
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

"You will find that I am kind. Unlike the cruel Leonidas, who demanded that you stand...I require only that you kneel."
-- King Xerxes, 300

Liberalism is an extraordinarily deceptive, ruinous and cruel ideology. That's because liberalism comes, arms wide open, whispering sweet words of compassion and pity, even as it forcefully slams down a boot upon the neck of people it's "helping." It's bad enough to see people's lives ruined by those who make no pretense about their intentions, but to see human beings destroyed by those who claim to have only their best interests at heart...well, let's just say it's a hell of a thing.

What liberalism does to minorities: Liberalism falsely convinces minorities in America that they are widely hated and despised for their skin color. How terrible it must be to spend your days seeing racial slights that don't exist, feeling despised by people who don't give you a second thought, and expecting that you will be treated unfairly by people, most of whom think no more of your skin color than they do the color of the carpet they're standing on.

Believing these lies leads to a sense of victimhood that liberalism offers to "fix" with more destructive solutions like Affirmative Action. How many white Americans have doubted the achievement of a black American because of Affirmative Action? How many black Americans have doubted their own worthiness because they thought they may have been given a helping hand because of their race? How many black college students who would have graduated with honors at UNC-Chapel Hill flunked out of Harvard because Affirmative Action got them into a college that was over their head? In the wildest dreams of the Ku Klux Klan, they could have never come up with an ideology as deviously destructive to minorities in America as liberalism.

What liberalism does to children: One of the great ironies of modern life is the constant liberal refrain of "do it for the children." That's true, not only because liberalism is directly responsible for the death of more than 40 million children via abortion, but because liberal policies have descended like a plague of locusts upon the inheritance that America's sons and daughters would have otherwise received. Generations after everyone who went to Woodstock is in the ground, Americans will still be paying off their spending. What better thing could we do for the children than to safeguard the country we grew up in so that they'll have an opportunity to live the American dream, too?

What liberalism does to Africa: Liberalism's smothering paternalism has arguably done considerably more damage to Africa than European colonialism. "The Western world has given Africa 'about a trillion dollars in aid in the past 50 years' and yet as a whole, the continent could be fairly said to have gone backwards over the last 10-15 years." Obviously our aid is doing little for Africa, but we can't stop, even if it would be better for them to learn to stand on their own two feet, because liberalism says it’s better to ruin millions of lives than to risk making liberals feel bad.

If only liberalism similarly prioritized the lives of African children over those of song birds. In another great irony, it's conservatives who argue that DDT should be used in Africa to kill mosquitoes and wipe out malaria, while liberals are willing to watch millions die because they're afraid that to do otherwise -- might put a few birds at risk.

What liberalism has done to the American family: Oh, the intentions are always good...so liberalism says. They just don't want anyone to feel bad or be judged negatively. They want everyone to have a good time and they believe the government should be there to pick up the pieces if things don't go well. So, we get...

Welfare checks. Gay marriage. No fault divorce. The sexual revolution. Attacks on Christianity. Lauding hedonism and single mothers in Hollywood. "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

But, when inevitably divorce rates skyrocket, our prisons fill up with children who never had fathers living in the home, and our society starts to fray around the edges, no one wants to admit that liberalism is at the heart of the entire problem.

What liberalism does to the poor: What mother dreams that her child will grow up to be on food stamps? What decent father wants to see his son eating free breakfast at school? How can you care about a person and want to see him living in a government housing project, collecting welfare, and nursing a grudge against the people in our society who have succeeded in life, instead of trying to become a success himself?

Liberalism says its adherents should pat themselves on the back for their compassion because they're making it possible for people to live that way. How many men's pride have they stolen with that "compassion?" How many lives has that "compassion" helped mire in misery? How many people, who could have made good lives for themselves, in the end, became dependent on the government and chose lives of mediocrity? If someone views that as "compassion," then his moral compass is shattered.

***************

We must weep at the feet of the gods for treating us so cruelly as to have inflicted Welfare Liberalism upon us!
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
I have to laugh at each post getting an ad hominem response from you with nary a challenge to the substance!

It is a good day to reflect on the travesty of "modern welfare liberalism!"

Keep fighting the good fight.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,758
54,781
136
All I can say is that this whole thread is an epic /facepalm. I have no idea why more people don't refute the 'substance' of things like:

'But, when inevitably divorce rates skyrocket, our prisons fill up with children who never had fathers living in the home, and our society starts to fray around the edges, no one wants to admit that liberalism is at the heart of the entire problem.'

If you actually believe any of this drivel, you're a moron. Like you are seriously and genuinely developmentally disabled. The actual definition of 'moron' is someone with the intellectual development of an 8 to 12 year old. This is the only circumstance in which I could see anyone actually believing the stupidity you write.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
All I can say is that this whole thread is an epic /facepalm. I have no idea why more people don't refute the 'substance' of things like:

'But, when inevitably divorce rates skyrocket, our prisons fill up with children who never had fathers living in the home, and our society starts to fray around the edges, no one wants to admit that liberalism is at the heart of the entire problem.'

If you actually believe any of this drivel, you're a moron. Like you are seriously and genuinely developmentally disabled. The actual definition of 'moron' is someone with the intellectual development of an 8 to 12 year old. This is the only circumstance in which I could see anyone actually believing the stupidity you write.

Why don't YOU refute the substance instead of indulging in another epic round of ad hominem attack. The problem has been well documented and was identified back in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations.

From Wiki -

"...(Daniel Patrick) Moynihan was an Assistant Secretary of Labor for policy in the Kennedy Administration and in the early part of the Lyndon Johnson Administration. In that capacity, he did not have operational responsibilities, allowing him to devote all of his time to trying to formulate national policy for what would become the War on Poverty. He had a small staff including Paul Barton, Ellen Broderick, and Ralph Nader (who at 29 years of age, hitchhiked to Washington, D.C. and got a job working for Moynihan in 1963).

They took inspiration from the book "Slavery" written by Stanley Elkins. Elkins essentially contended that slavery had made black Americans dependent on the dominant society, and that that dependence still existed a century later, supporting a view that the government must go beyond simply ensuring that members of minority races have the same rights as everyone else, and offering minority members benefits that others did not get on the grounds that those benefits were necessary to counteract that lingering effects of past actions.

Moynihan's research of Labor Department data demonstrated that even as fewer people were unemployed, more people were joining the welfare rolls. These recipients were families with children, but only one parent (almost invariably the mother). The laws at that time permitted such families to receive welfare payments in certain parts of the United States.

Moynihan issued his research under the title "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action," now commonly known as The Moynihan Report. Moynihan's report fueled a debate over the proper course for government to take with regard to the economic underclass, especially blacks, and was attacked by those on the left as "blaming the victim", a slogan coined by William Ryan. Some went so far as to suggest that he was propagating the views of racists because much of the press coverage of his reports focused on the discussion of children being born out of wedlock. Despite Moynihan's warnings, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program had the "Man out of the house rule." Critics said that the nation was paying poor women to throw their husbands out of the house. Moynihan supported Richard Nixon's idea of a Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI). Daniel Patrick Moynihan had significant discussions concerning a Basic Income Guarantee with Russell B. Long and Louis O. Kelso.

After the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress, Moynihan agreed that something had to be done about the welfare system possibly encouraging women to raise their children without fathers: "The Republicans are saying we have a helluva problem, and we do."
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
PJABBER does have an interesting mode of "discussion": a brief comment followed by a Wall-of-Text quotation of dubious authority with anyone's disputation of that "authority" casually dismissed as ad hominem, followed by another Wall-of Text quotation even more dubious than the last. If one of these threads persists long enough, I fully expect to see "authoritative" quotations from fictitious characters.


Of course, considering PJ's reverence for the Great Prevaricator, borrowing such a trick from the Reagan playbook could be expected...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
All I can say is that this whole thread is an epic /facepalm. I have no idea why more people don't refute the 'substance' of things like:

'But, when inevitably divorce rates skyrocket, our prisons fill up with children who never had fathers living in the home, and our society starts to fray around the edges, no one wants to admit that liberalism is at the heart of the entire problem.'

If you actually believe any of this drivel, you're a moron. Like you are seriously and genuinely developmentally disabled. The actual definition of 'moron' is someone with the intellectual development of an 8 to 12 year old. This is the only circumstance in which I could see anyone actually believing the stupidity you write.
Just out of morbid curiosity, what is your explanation for the higher rate of incarceration for men raised without a father in the home, when corrected for poverty?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,758
54,781
136
I like it how when PJABBER cites sources that say things like:

'liberals are willing to watch millions die because they're afraid that to do otherwise -- might put a few birds at risk.'

That somehow the burden is on ME to address that. Enough of this stupidity.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Walls of text go away when robo trolls are added to one's ignore list... I would like to thank those replying who did not directly quote the OP. I can almost fit the entire thread in my browser window without having to scroll down.

This guy is all about just having fun watching people try and explain to him how stupid he is acting. Move along ...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,758
54,781
136
Just out of morbid curiosity, what is your explanation for the higher rate of incarceration for men raised without a father in the home, when corrected for poverty?

I wouldn't really know, I haven't done research on the topic. I do know that you would have to put a lot more than the poverty rate into any regression for that issue though. You would also need to correct for what percentage of those fatherless homes were caused by the ease of divorce. Then you would have to consider the absolute misery that having two parents stuck together who don't want to be together brings to a family. Trust me, I know.

What I do know is that whatever the answer is I'm willing to bet every dime I own that it's a lot more complex than 'liberalism'.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,758
54,781
136
Walls of text go away when robo trolls are added to one's ignore list... I would like to thank those replying who did not directly quote the OP. I can almost fit the entire thread in my browser window without having to scroll down.

This guy is all about just having fun watching people try and explain to him how stupid he is acting. Move along ...

You're right. I've fed the troll for far too long.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I wouldn't really know, I haven't done research on the topic. I do know that you would have to put a lot more than the poverty rate into any regression for that issue though. You would also need to correct for what percentage of those fatherless homes were caused by the ease of divorce. Then you would have to consider the absolute misery that having two parents stuck together who don't want to be together brings to a family. Trust me, I know.

What I do know is that whatever the answer is I'm willing to bet every dime I own that it's a lot more complex than 'liberalism'.

Well, "I don't know" is always a valid answer. Kudos for not just saying "conservatism". I can certainly agree that divorce is probably better more often than not if parents honestly just can't get along. I think though in this case it's true that a lot of damage was done, especially to black families, by well-intentioned social programs. Whether the good outweighed the bad - I think I'll fall back on "I don't know" as well, since I know some people who grew up on welfare with a single mother not actually capable of raising them and providing a living, mothers for whom welfare rules were the least of their problems in finding and keeping a man. Or at least a man worth having.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
PJABBER does have an interesting mode of "discussion": a brief comment followed by a Wall-of-Text quotation of dubious authority with anyone's disputation of that "authority" casually dismissed as ad hominem, followed by another Wall-of Text quotation even more dubious than the last. If one of these threads persists long enough, I fully expect to see "authoritative" quotations from fictitious characters.

Of course, considering PJ's reverence for the Great Prevaricator, borrowing such a trick from the Reagan playbook could be expected...

Nah, I just follow different posting styles depending on what mood I am in. All of the posted commentary by other authors is from today and thus timely as well as on topic. I don't want to post too many topics and thus spin your world away from the ever tightening death spiral it is on, but... you never want a serious crisis to go to waste!

I know that the Left hates the insight and the acuity of the Right, but I find it interesting that the Independent middle is now looking askance, even in horror, at the travesty of what passes here for leftish governance.

Profligacy, nepotism and the plain ol' kookiness found at the Democrat "progressive" fringe is now coming home to roost!
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Another thin veil of text covering a steaming pile of baseless opinions. Yawn, PJ, Yawn.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Walls of text go away when robo trolls are added to one's ignore list... I would like to thank those replying who did not directly quote the OP. I can almost fit the entire thread in my browser window without having to scroll down.

This guy is all about just having fun watching people try and explain to him how stupid he is acting. Move along ...

Your negative opinion of the op is based upon what? I mean,,,, you do need to give some weight to it (your opinion), otherwise, the way I see it, the Op is spot on!

Of course, that is just my opinion, and mine doesn't really have any more weight than yours does, but it is based upon what I read in the OP and what I read in your response.

Yours, on the other hand, given your posting history, appears to be based upon the lack of some sort of intellectual ability to refute anything in the OP.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
...I know that the Left hates the insight and the acuity of the Right, but I find it interesting that the Independent middle is now looking askance, even in horror, at the travesty of what passes here for leftish governance...
Insight and Acuity?
It's been quite some time since "the Right" in this country did any more than pander to the worst instincts of religious fundamentalists while paying no more than lip service to fiscal conservatism. If you can manage to find anyone on "the Right" today of the intellectual stature and integrity of Barry Goldwater and William Buckley, we will again have Conservatives worthy of a national audience.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Condescending pseudo-intelligent douche troll posts another wall of right wing nutjob spam. Oh joy. :rolleyes:
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
4. The left is far more interested in power than the right is. This, too, should have been self-evident, but finally, people are realizing that those who are preoccupied with creating an ever-expanding state are obviously far more interested in amassing power than those who want a smaller state.

This is completely preposterous. Both parties spend tons of money trying to get power. To act like the left is somehow more power-hungry than the right is absurd and undermine's the author's already-questionable credibility.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
This is completely preposterous. Both parties spend tons of money trying to get power. To act like the left is somehow more power-hungry than the right is absurd and undermine's the author's already-questionable credibility.

Uhhh, hellooo?

Big government = more government power

Small government = less government power

Whomever is advocating big government, Republicrat or Democan, is after more power. Choose wisely.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Uhhh, hellooo?

Big government = more government power

Small government = less government power

Whomever is advocating big government, Republicrat or Democan, is after more power. Choose wisely.
Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.
-P.J. O'Rourke
 
Last edited: