If an individual cannot perfectly master himself how does he expect that government will perfectly master itself. In Federalist #51 James Madison wrote, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Since men are not angels and therefore make up neither electorate nor governement imperfection in selection and service are to be expected. In aditoin, no perfection can be expected from government therefore government must be aregulated and limited to protect the electorate from the natural capriciousness and cupidity of men in power.
[You have some typos, Hat!]
Yes and Ronald Reagan believed the same things, however . . .
Why are all your replies pictures?
Do you create them?
You're so observant, Ricky! I create some of them, but as they say—a picture is worth a thousand words.
Unfortunately when you're trying to communicate with thickheaded zealots, a thousand pictures wouldn't help—but they do cut through the BS and the endless propaganda and dogma.
Hat wants it to go back to The Right of Kings . . . and maybe even Feudalism!
Apparently the most powerful man in the history of the United States to have done all these things without the cooperation of the DEMOCRATS in Congress. Perhaps some familiarity with the actual history of legislation in the 80s would help.(or not)
And still not a direct reply to the premiss. Just another absurdity.
I see, it's all the Democrats fault when the President has to deal with a Republican congress but it's still the Democrats fault when a President has to deal with a Republican congress. This is getting very old...
The President and the Congress are supposed to have clear divisions in responsibility. Congress generates a budget. Presidents can ask for certain budget priorities and can request legislative priorities but legislation - ALL legislation is the responsibility of Congress. If the President agrees with the Congress and signs the legislation he then becomes equally responsible for that legislation.
No President has had to deal with a totally Republican Congress since the surplus, balanced budget , National Debt pay down and welfare reform years of Bill Clinton. Prior to that Congress these things were not a Clinton or Congressional priority. With Democrat Clinton as President and Democrat controlled Congress the country faced annual budget deficits and a single payer health care program. These things caused the second biggest Congressional turn over since the Civil War. It was also the first time a sitting Speaker of the House lost his own Congressional seat.
Democrats had total control over Congress(a filibuster proof Senate) for his first year. Ever since he has been scrambling to keep the "accomplishments" of that year extant while the nation has struggled with his wonderful economic Utopian vision.
Neither Reagan nor Bush ever had a filibuster proof Senate and Bush only had 4 years of an admittedly flawed Republican Congress.
Still doesn't disprove the premiss that Democrat government is bad government.
I don't get the correlation between the title of this forum thread and the body of the OP?
Far as I could make out, the actual post being made sounded like a blanket statement about government and not just one party or another. Not sure what the heck it has to do with the dem party specifically...
There is a fundamental difference between American liberals and conservatives and it is whether the government should be large and regulate Americans or small and regulated by the Constitution. This is at the root of every disagreement. Is government sufficiently virtuous to govern an ever increasing amount of our private, personal choices. Re disciplining the Federal government to the limits imposed by the Constitution sends Democrats into fits of apoplexy.
Democrats believe that government is better suited to making choices for you than you are. Democrats seek to insinuate government into an ever increasing array of activity. Democrats seek to turn all Americans into protected, nurtured, sheltered wards of the state. They will never say it but their actions speak loudly of their aims.
Madison was laying out an argument for limited government but say limited government to Democrats and the twitching starts.
by Charles James4 years ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come...
by American View5 years ago
I find it interesting when Democrats say the only reason people will vote for Romney is because he is a Republican. They chastise the people on the right who are loyal to their party. They cannot see that people will...
by LucidDreams4 years ago
I am not saying ALL Republicans are, I am just wondering why anyone would actually stay with a party that is clearly not on the same page as most of America? Most (not all) but most who are die hard right Republicans...
by Onusonus3 years ago
This is an actual plaque hanging at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. The excuses given from the Liberals who made this are a wide stretch of the imagination.
by Ralph Deeds8 years ago
Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes today 1-5-08 is entitled "Fighting Off Depression." In it he called the recent economic numbers "terrifying," not just in the U.S. but around the world....
by KK Trainor6 years ago
Why vote for the party that wants to keep you dependent on the government?I am not saying that I believe all minorities vote Democrat, nor that all of them are dependent on government assistance in its many forms. I...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.