If your customers are broke you can't make sales

LOL....I love it. Scat says something that Ricter doesn't like, so Ricter replies to him. But Scat can't see it because he has Ricter on ignore. Then Lucrum tells Ricter he's wrong (and he is) about his reply to Scat, but Ricter can't see it because he has Lucrum on ignore.
Yeah, my list is up to two dickheads! :D
 
You're completely wrong. The opposite of strong, central government is weak, fragmented government. Examples of that are easily found today, all over the Third World. You think that's better?

You're forgetting that our constitution was designed to give us strong state governments, and to specifically keep centralized government out of most of our daily affairs. Those third world countries you are pointing to as an example do not have a level of state government.
 
You're forgetting that our constitution was designed to give us strong state governments, and to specifically keep centralized government out of most of our daily affairs. Those third world countries you are pointing to as an example do not have a level of state government.
Then the principle holds, only the scale changes. No one wants weak government.
 
LOL....I love it. Scat says something that Ricter doesn't like, so Ricter replies to him. But Scat can't see it because he has Ricter on ignore. Then Lucrum tells Ricter he's wrong (and he is) about his reply to Scat, but Ricter can't see it because he has Lucrum on ignore.
:D
 
Then the principle holds, only the scale changes. No one wants weak government.

It makes a difference, even if you want to claim it's just the principle. We have way too strong and big central government - which is what Scat was arguing against. He specifically referred to centralized (federal) government. You said he was wrong, but he actually wasn't.

No one here is arguing for weak government across the board, and no one here is arguing for no government - despite what you pretend with snark. What the majority of us want is less government federally - a whole lot less, and more state powers to fill that void. States don't trample people's rights anywhere near the level of the federal government. Because if they did, people would just move to another state, and they'd lose tax revenue.

That's the whole point. State politicians are also much easier for the people to control because they aren't able to maintain the same levels of power that federal ones have - because the "machine" can't reach them on the same level (probably because it isn't interested).
 
It makes a difference, even if you want to claim it's just the principle. We have way too strong and big central government - which is what Scat was arguing against. He specifically referred to centralized (federal) government. You said he was wrong, but he actually wasn't.

No one here is arguing for weak government across the board, and no one here is arguing for no government - despite what you pretend with snark. What the majority of us want is less government federally - a whole lot less, and more state powers to fill that void. States don't trample people's rights anywhere near the level of the federal government. Because if they did, people would just move to another state, and they'd lose tax revenue.

That's the whole point.

+ 101
 
Back
Top