The debate "Why does bush fears that he might be the last republican president" was started by
July 24, 2016, 12:01 am.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Blue_ray posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
dalton7532 posted 11 arguments, Nemiroff posted 11 arguments to the disagreers part.
Blue_ray, Marshallechols and 5 visitors agree.
blank, dalton7532, Nemiroff and 2 visitors disagree.
I think I'll just call you out on it now. keep on dodging
when in 10 days from now i still refuse to answer your question
isn't it sad that much of the world, including developing parts have many times faster Internet at a fraction of our cost? yup, deregulation has worked out great.
I'm glad you got a new phone with more internet.... at what point shall I consider you as dodging?
my uncle got a new phone with unlimited 4g data for 4 months for free of cost.
I got a new phone with 10gbs
ok i have 80gb data left. i can even download gtav
I have an att hotspot. I had 200mbs left.
really i have 80gb data left.
I'll quote later, I can only view text based sites since I have 200 megabytes of internet left on my hotspot. Don't think I am dodging.
I see nothing regarding the federalists wanting small but strong, and nothing regarding only madison wanting to make it stronger. Hamilton also was pushing for more and more. they all were.
quote or you got nothing.
"As far as I know, it has nothing to do with the government providing everything and infringing on the free market and certain services."
this is why I say people who get the details of opposition policies from their own side's sources are sheep. few mainstream Democrats want it to provide anything or to infringe on a free market.
a minimum wage is not a government provided check or necessities. it's a solution cause if you can't afford necessities with a paycheck or even 2, why bother work. I mean it's not like Republicans are doing anything to promote education or advancement anyway.
and infringing on a free market would be if the government entered into it as a competitor and that is only suggested for healthcare.... which is kinda important and maybe should be.
the government is not a player, it is the rule maker and a referee. that is its purpose. your "smaller government" mantra has already lead to both great depression and great recession, how much more damage do you want to do to this nation?
'"The founding fathers wanted small government."'
you put this into quotes, but which founding father said that? or were you quoting yourself. I'm assuming you can't find any quotes hinting at federalists wanting something small then...
"Ultimately, they all agreed on a small government, bigger than a confederacy presented by the articles, one where they stay out of daily life, promote self reliance, and embrace the free market. None of them advocated big government like socialism."
quotes? professional historian interpretation? anything? I don't work on faith.
Let's look at the facts and what the actually did, they made a small government that gives a lot of rights to the states. We have a STRONG, but LIMITED central government needed in order to function. V I do not see how anything I said would be controversial. Their actions and the government they created says it all. They in no way created a government system nor advocated one like the democrats are proposing and creating today. You should read what I wrote closer because nothing controversial was said.
"The founding fathers wanted small government." "I already read them, and MADISON was the strongest advocate for a bigger centralized government. Moreover, to equally represent the people because he believed a bigger delegation of powers would better represent the people rather than a small few. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with the government providing everything and infringing on the free market and certain services. Ultimately, they all agreed on a small government, bigger than a confederacy presented by the articles, one where they stay out of daily life, promote self reliance, and embrace the free market. None of them advocated big government like socialism."
I deleted that post cause I didn't want to go on a tangent, can we finish the discussion as to the intentions of the founding fathers which you claim to know without any proof.
The current government we set up was a small but strong government. The government created by the confederacy was too small but it failed.
I didn't see the word small in that quote? is this a dalton original or something the founding fathers ACTUALLY SAID?
stop playing with opinions and wishful thinking. cause until you give me a quote, you have nothing.
You can be small strong and energetic. That is where you blow everything out of proportion. The founding fathers were advocates of giving a lot of power to the states. What part of that sounds like advocating a big federal government?
what part of George Washington's statement about STRONG & ENERGETIC government sounds particularly small? can you provide a quote cause my link had multitude.
just cause you believe they wanted a small government doesn't mean they did. quotes speak louder than opinions.
I am not going to correct a correct statement. The only thing I should correct would be putting federal in front of government. Then it would be, "The founding fathers wanted a small federal government." Is that better for you?
"The founding fathers wanted small government." -Dalton
I was not trying to defend socialism which didn't even come up in this discussion, but correct a false statement you made. please done change the subject.
socialism didn't exist at that time.
that's like asking me to prove the founders supported the idea of a free internet....
You are completely blowing a strong centralized government out of proportion and what they meant by it. A strong centralized government is not a socialist one, it only means a strong centralized government. They supported LIMITED government that was strong and had its checks and balances. Strong basically means powers that were delegated correctly so they government can function properly, something that cannot be done under the WEAK government controlled by the articles. If you can find a single source that proves the notion that they tolerated socialist, you have an argument. Otherwise, you do not have one.
the vast majority of notable founding fathers were pro strong centralized government. it is the antifederalists who had only a few notable members.
?The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians??
"Some famous Founding Fathers who advocated strong energetic central (national) government you might recognize include George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, John Marshall, John Jay, Rufus King, Gouverneur Morris, William Samuel Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth, Edmund Randolph, John Rutledge, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, just to name a few"
I already read them, and MADISON was the strongest advocate for a bigger centralized government. Moreover, to equally represent the people because he believed a bigger delegation of powers would better represent the people rather than a small few. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with the government providing everything and infringing on the free market and certain services. Ultimately, they all agreed on a small government, bigger than a confederacy presented by the articles, one where they stay out of daily life, promote self reliance, and embrace the free market. None of them advocated big government like socialism.
many, if not most, of the founding fathers saw a necessity for a strong centralized federal government and put in checks cause the average uneducated lay person of the time had fears of strong centralized government in the form of traditional monarchies imprinted in their minds.
like many on the right, I think you have a very flawed view of the intentions of the founders. you should read some of their documents, like the federalist papers.
The founding fathers wanted small government. How the hell would they be disgusted by the party that wants small government? I think they would be disgusted by the party who wants big government. Am I right or am I wrong? Knowing you, you do not agree with logic. The founding fathers would hate the modern day democratic party because almost everything they bring to the table disagrees with their vision for America.
the Republicans have shifted so far right that everyone looks like a socialist to them. the founding fathers would be disgusted by them. Republicans from 50 years ago would be disgusted by them.
dems were socialist before socialist was a thing. see FDR. dems moved away from socialist like policies after the McCarthy witch hunts and bill Clinton DINO deregulation policies that screwed our economy.
not that I am against change, but rather this is a return to true form while the Republicans are making themselves more extreme and numerous historians and economists believe the worshiped Reagan would be considered a RINO in the current Republican extremist party.
both parties are changing. the dems are becoming socialist, and rebublicans are becoming like trump in ideology. it's simply change, neither party will end.
@blueray why you starting to doubt trump?
iam starting to doubt trump
hmm i understand
because trump isn't a Republican. if he wins the election it would probably be the end of the Republican party.