koolaid wrote:I would say more of the problem is that our continued system of only two parties has reduced political discourse to arbitrary team cheering and completely eliminated nuance from general political discussion or opinion.tacticool wrote:It's like Reagan said. Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.
Because your quote if taken to its ultimate conclusion is current day Somalia and a return to feudal warlordism, which is what happens basically everywhere in the absence of government.
tacticool wrote:Sorry but I'm not drinking that koolaid.
coolaid wrote:A meaningless quip that essentially proves my point.
Boys, boys, boys.......OldCurlyWolf wrote:Actually it says that your opinion is worth ignoring.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7980a/7980ad1c6aacf66c39dc7942ad64fb517e90e184" alt="Rolling Eyes :roll:"
In the context that Reagan said that, it meant that a large, intrusive, government is the problem, not the solution; but Reagan was not philosophically against the existence of government. He would not have participated in the political process as an elected official if he thought that. Neither were the Founders against the existence of government. They believed that government was absolutely necessary, which is supported in their writings; but that for it to be just and function properly with respect to the rights of man, it had to be constructed a certain way.
Does anybody care to refute the founders? Their ideas and sacrifices are what protect your gunrights. If they thought that NO government was the solution, they wouldn't have set one up. Unless you claim to be an anarchist—a political philosophy for the brutish—then you have to admit that some government is a good and necessary thing. People merely differ in the degree to which they believe it ought to direct their lives.