eatbees blog

Comment from Craig
Time: April 3, 2010, 00:53

Here’s a quote that is making the rounds of right-leaning websites and comment boards.

Looks to me that it’s more making the rounds of the lefties and ex-pats blogs, since yours is the only one I’ve seen it on :)

Comment from Craig
Time: April 3, 2010, 00:56

By the way, why is it that American ex-pats always seem to appoint themselves the role of fanning the flames of anti-Americanism? Ex-pats from every other country seem to try to promote goodwill towards their home country. I’m seriously curious about what it is that makes American ex-pats different.

Comment from Craig
Time: April 3, 2010, 02:01

By the way part 2:

This recalls the first couple of years of the Clinton administration, which saw a similar upsurge in right-wing militias, along with…

Caused by this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

If you don’t recall Ruby Ridge, I suggest you read that wiki carefully and think about if that’s really the kind of behavior Americans expect from their government. If that doesn’t work for you, pretend it’s an account of an atrocity committed by the Israelis against Palestinians, and I’m sure you’ll understand then.

Don’t Americans also have the right to resist? :)

Comment from eatbees
Time: April 3, 2010, 09:42

Craig, you accuse me of “fanning the flames of anti-Americanism” and at the same time, you expect me to defend the American government for its actions at Ruby Ridge (and Waco, a far more serious disaster). Do you see the contradiction here?

America was founded on the principle that power belongs to the people, and the tendency of the central government to accrue power to itself over time needs to be kept in check by an alerted, engaged citizenry. I think we can agree there.

What I find ironic in the points of view I referenced in this post, is the way that the right wing under Obama is a mirror image of the left wing under Bush. Both feel that the powers in Washington are violating the Constitution, both feel that the president stole the election (in Bush’s case, because of the infamous Supreme Court decision), and both feel that the majority of their fellow citizens are being brainwashed by a media pimping for the other side.

I’m actually all for the Tea Party movement, though I’m in profound disagreement with much of its vision, because I see it as a conservative version of MoveOn, Daily Kos and the like. I’ll oppose them through argument and through political action, but if they succeed in convincing the majority of Americans to elect like-minded leaders, then more power to them.

However, my sense is that American politics moves in generation-long cycles. Every 35 years or so, we reach a transformative moment, where the pendulum swings decisively in the other direction. It happened with the Progressive movement of Teddy Roosevelt, FDR’s New Deal, the Reagan Revolution, and now, a new majority consensus is forming around liberal principles.

This is happening for demographic reasons, because young people share Obama’s vision by large majorities, and because the white, evangelical, conservative base is shrinking in proportion to a more culturally diverse and urbanized population. It’s also happening for political reasons, because conservatism dominated American politics from 1980 to 2008 and its ideas are largely played out. The mess we’re in now is the result of the failure (or at least overextension) of conservative policies, so it’s time to move in a different direction.

When fringe groups and some mainstream figures like Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachman start hinting at armed revolution, what I hear is that they want America to themselves, rather than sharing it with the majority which includes people like me. In this case I’m grateful that we live in a nation of laws. They are welcome to agitate for their ideas, but if they continue to lose elections, they will just have to live with the result, as I did from 1980 to 2008 without ever calling for armed revolution against the state.

I may be living now in Morocco, but I would hold the same views if I were still in my home in Asheville, North Carolina. When I criticize America’s actions I do it on two grounds, either because of our imperial pretensions (George Washington warned against foreign entanglements, and Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the “military-industiral complex”), or because we still have a ways to go to guarantee economic justice and equal rights for all our citizens.

In both cases, I have an ideal of a moral and just America that I aspire to see it live up to. That’s very different from being anti-American. In any case, I recognize that I share America with 300 million others, so I won’t have my way all the time. As Winston Churchilll said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” These are ideals we can share with people anywhere in the world.

Comment from Myrtus
Time: April 3, 2010, 09:57

I disagree with you Eatbees, Obama style governance is anything but centrist, if that were the case I would be one of his biggest supporters.
Just like any other president before him, there are two prominent sides to Obama…one that is more balanced, packaged and presented to an international audience and the other is almost exclusively made to appeal to a Democrat audience domestically. From what I’ve observed, Obama does not seem to care about unifying the nation, he’s not a visionary with extraordinary leadership skills capable of leading a powerful nation. His administration clearly thrives on driving division down the middle to carry out the will of an ideology and not the will of the people in order do to what’s good for the country.

I also feel like America is far from being a real democracy, regardless if it’s a Democrat or a Republican in charge. In a true democracy I would expect referendums to take place that lets people vote to decide directly on major issues, especially when it comes to new laws and not a bunch of “elected” government officials gathering behind closed doors and meeting on weekends to strike deals.

And BTW the latest nutjob group making the headlines right now (targeting governors) is the socalled “Guardians of the free Republics.”

Comment from Craig
Time: April 3, 2010, 11:37

eatbees.

Craig, you accuse me of “fanning the flames of anti-Americanism” and at the same time, you expect me to defend the American government for its actions at Ruby Ridge (and Waco, a far more serious disaster). Do you see the contradiction here?

No, I don’t. For one thing, I don’t expect you to “defend” anyone. I’m asking why you are attacking and trying to discredit your fellow Americans so much. Especially on domestic political issues, when you don’t even live in the US. Do you realize this post was the topmost featured on toot? Why do you suppose that is? Of what interest is this post to a middle-eastern Arab blog aggregator? Should be, none. Right? Except for the seamy side of human nature which causes a lot of people to enjoy the opportunity to be “outraged” by mudslinging and scandals.

America was founded on the principle that power belongs to the people, and the tendency of the central government to accrue power to itself over time needs to be kept in check by an alerted, engaged citizenry. I think we can agree there.

Yes, and the left now has a super-majority in both houses of congress and controls the executive branch at the same time. Which is *frightening* to a lot of people. Neither party as had such a monopoly on power in my lifetime. I don’t think either party has had such a monopoly on power in my grandparent’s lifetime.

What I find ironic in the points of view I referenced in this post…

What I find ironic is the fact that you’ve got all you wanted, and you’re still complaining. And you don’t even live here. You took a blog post that was made in 2009 and got 7 comments(!?) and claimed it sparked some kind of internet phenomenon (really? 7 comments? that’s the best the right wing can do?) and from there you inserted a lot of editorializing on your part.

However, my sense is that American politics moves in generation-long cycles.

The cycles are much shorter than that, and are usually a reaction to massive brainfarts by the incumbent party. Reagan was elected because of Carter. Obama was elected because of Bush.

…and now, a new majority consensus is forming around liberal principles.

There’s nothing about socialism that can be described as “liberal”. And the only reason Democrats got voted for in the last election is that they weren’t Republicans. That’s hardly a “principle” :P

This is happening for demographic reasons, because young people share Obama’s vision by large majorities…

Young people have always favored the left. Unfortunately for the left, we have an aging population in the US.

…and because the white, evangelical, conservative base is shrinking in proportion to a more culturally diverse and urbanized population.

Which wasn’t true in 2004 of 2000, it seems lol

Whites are still a majority in the US. 80% of the US is Christian, and 90% of Americans believe in God. Over 50% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, whereas less than 30% of Americans identify themselves as progressive.

I’ll say this one more time: Obama got elected because he wasn’t Bush. He wasn’t supposed to actually DO anything except not be Bush. People didn’t trust McCain to not be Bush, which is why McCain didn’t get elected. I didn’t even vote for McCain. Obama’s main problem right now is that he isn’t satisfied with not being Bush, and he’s doing crazy stuff that even a lot of the people who voted for him don’t support. The next cycle may be even shorter than the last one. Jimmy Carter only got 4 years to not be Nixon. We may see a repeat of that.

The mess we’re in now is the result of the failure (or at least overextension) of conservative policies, so it’s time to move in a different direction.

That’s what leftists say every time they gain power. Remember when Al Gore said the US Constitution was a “living” document, and when Hillary Clinton started using copies of the US Constitution as toilet paper? OK, I’m just guessing on the latter part, but I’m pretty confident she was! I was appalled at the way democrats were behaving during the Clinton years.

When fringe groups and some mainstream figures like Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachman start hinting at armed revolution, what I hear is that they want America to themselves…

What I hear is that they want America to remain America. Ruby Ridge and Waco did not happen in America. They happened in a quasi police state where government power knew no bounds.

…rather than sharing it with the majority which includes people like me.

You don’t even live here :P

In this case I’m grateful that we live in a nation of laws. They are welcome to agitate for their ideas, but if they continue to lose elections, they will just have to live with the result, as I did from 1980 to 2008 without ever calling for armed revolution against the state.

You left the country, instead. That’s why the Federal government is so much more afraid of the right-wing than the left-wing.

By the way, Obama has some people in his inner circle who were members of armed revolutionary groups back in the 1970s. Some of them are even convicted of crimes for it. You don’t have a problem with that?

I may be living now in Morocco, but I would hold the same views if I were still in my home in Asheville, North Carolina. When I criticize America’s actions I do it on two grounds, either because of our imperial pretensions (George Washington warned against foreign entanglements, and Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the “military-industiral complex”)

You give lessons on isolationism to a libertarian? lol

Dude, your side has never hesitated to stick its big marxist nose where it doesn’t belong. In fact, democrats have intervened overseas a lot more often than republicans have.

…or because we still have a ways to go to guarantee economic justice and equal rights for all our citizens.

Economic justice is a synonym for wealth redistribution up in there? That’s un-american.

In both cases, I have an ideal of a moral and just America that I aspire to see it live up to. That’s very different from being anti-American.

It’s very much anti-American if you try to impose your own personal versions of morality and justice on everyone else. Justice is defined by the US constitution and the US supreme court’s interpretation of it, not by ex-pat bloggers in Morocco. And the closest we come to allowing a public version of “morality” to exist is in our system of laws. Again, not something either you or I get to decide.

In any case, I recognize that I share America with 300 million others, so I won’t have my way all the time.

It’s not about you having your way, or me having mine. It’s about all of us being free to live the way we want to, without being told what to do by the government. You want the government to tell people what to do. That’s un-American.

As Winston Churchilll said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” These are ideals we can share with people anywhere in the world.

I don’t care about what the rest of the world does. We don’t need to share our ideals with them. They’ve made it pretty clear that they don’t think much of our way of life, anyway. And even if that weren’t so, I don’t believe the US has either a right or a responsibility to interfere in the affairs of people in other countries, and that includes trying to influence them on social issues.

Weren’t you just saying something about imperialism and conservatives? What you just said looks like cultural imperialism, to me. That’s one thing the left has always excelled at, isn’t it?

Sorry about the long post :)

Comment from Craig
Time: April 3, 2010, 12:52

Myrtus, though I suspect we disagree greatly when it comes to ideology, I really liked your comment :)

Comment from eatbees
Time: April 3, 2010, 14:49

@Craig:

Do you realize this post was the topmost featured on toot?

No, I didn’t, though I’m happy about that :)

Why do you suppose that is? Of what interest is this post to a middle-eastern Arab blog aggregator? Should be, none. Right?

Why shouldn’t people living in the Middle East care what’s going on in the U.S.? First, it often affects them directly, and second, there are a lot of people in the Middle East who are well-informed about the world generally. There’s this thing called the internet, and airplanes and global commerce, that mean we live in the same neighborhood, like it or not. That’s where a lot of the tensions of our era are coming from, and yes we should talk about it.

By the way, in my three years of writing about the Middle East, I’ve never had anyone from the Middle East turn this around and say, “Who are you to write about us? You aren’t even one of us.” Does that mean they’re more tolerant than you are?

You took a blog post that was made in 2009 and got 7 comments(!?) and claimed it sparked some kind of internet phenomenon….

Here’s the internet phenomenon it sparked — over 34,000 hits. I just did people the favor of tracking down the original source, which is apparently so obscure that no one passing around this quote knows where it came from. But those passing it say themselves that it’s spreading like wildfire in their circles.

…when you don’t even live in the US.

You don’t even live here :P

You said this about five times, and frankly it’s kind of insulting. I carry a U.S. passport, I’ve voted in every U.S. election since I was 18, I pay taxes in the U.S., I have a U.S. driver’s license, I was active in my local Democratic Party as recently as last summer — but frankly, even if I was a Zimbabwe tribesman, I would still have a right to express my point of view about U.S. politics. If you don’t think what I have to say is relevant, why are you spending so much time trying to refute it?

…

The rest of your rant is a mix of innuendo, half-truths and honest disagreements there’s no point in hashing out further, but there is one thing I want to take issue with.

It’s very much anti-American if you try to impose your own personal versions of morality and justice on everyone else. … You want the government to tell people what to do.

You must be projecting some sterotype that exists in your own mind, because I never said anything like this.

We the People tell the government what to do, that’s how democracy works. We elect representatives to deal with issues such as national defense, regulation of markets, or projects in the common interest. What those projects should be is determined by voting on competing platforms, and limited by the Constitution and the courts. It’s true that I’m not a libertarian, but then neither were the Founders, or they wouldn’t have set up a government of rights and responsibilities in the first place.

In the democratic process, we accept some limits on our freedoms for the common good. We have laws that prevent companies from dumping chemicals into the river, or selling drugs that haven’t been tested, or making false claims in advertising. We have laws against child molesters and loud music at 3:00 a.m. True, the government is telling those companies or individuals what to do — but then again, by electing representatives to enact those laws, We the People told the government what to do in the first place.

Where we disagree is how broadly the government should define the common interest. In all the other advanced democracies there is a much stronger safety net, such as a national health care system — and I would prefer that, but I won’t get my way anytime soon. You say you’d like to be “free to live the way you want to,” so does that mean you’d like to live in a society with no regulation at all? You won’t get your way anytime soon either, but the Progressive movement of the 1890s came into being for a reason. Those were the days of monopoly capitalism (the “robber barons”) which meant child labor, dangerous working conditions, unscrupulous banks, tainted meat, farmers squeezed by the cost of shipping their goods, and so on. We the People rose up and demanded reform, and over time the compromise we know today came into being. You feel it’s gone too far, and I say it hasn’t gone far enough — but neither of us will decide alone. What matters is that the decisions are made transparently, by popular vote. Can we agree on that?

Comment from eatbees
Time: April 3, 2010, 15:46

@Myrtus:

…there are two prominent sides to Obama — one that is more balanced, packaged and presented to an international audience and the other is almost exclusively made to appeal to a Democrat audience domestically.

Speaking as a Democrat, from our point of view he’s been spending most of his time “reaching across the aisle” trying to engage conservatives. But the conservatives have made a political calculation to oppose him ferociously and completely, rather than working constructively to influence policy. He’s been left with the choice of doing nothing (not an option considering we have two wars and a serious recession) or using his majority in the House and Senate to pass legislation with only Democratic votes. Even that has been difficult, because Democrats run the spectrum from extremely liberal (Dennis Kucinich) to rather conservative (Senator Ben Nelson).

I’m not satisfied with the compromises that were necessary, but the nation is seriously divided, as it has been since at least 2000. Future elections in 2010 and 2012 will bring clarity, because then we’ll be voting on Obama’s record, not just his promises. Either he’ll lose his majority in Congress in 2010 and then the presidency in 2012, or he’ll come back stronger in 2012 and build on what he’s already done.

From what I’ve observed, Obama does not seem to care about unifying the nation…. His administration clearly thrives on driving division down the middle to carry out the will of an ideology and not the will of the people….

Let’s be fair, he does have a majority in both houses of Congress. So everything he’s done, represents the majority as it was in 2008. If the people don’t like what he’s done, he’ll lose his majority.

As far as consciously dividing the nation, I think this more accurately describes the Bush years. It was Rove who had the idea of dividing the nation down the middle with the “51 percent strategy” — look it up.

In a true democracy I would expect referendums to take place that lets people vote to decide directly on major issues, especially when it comes to new laws….

With the internet, it’s becoming practical. We wouldn’t even have to go to the polls, we could simply sign into the Direct Democracy website, where we would have two weeks to debate and vote on new laws. We could even propose laws ourselves, and vote them up or down in priority like on Reddit or Digg.

Another option would be to vote directly with our taxes, checking off which programs we want our taxes to fund. Programs that don’t get enough money to be funded, whether it’s the CIA or health care reform, would have to be shut down.

The danger, however, is how do we know that the American people, in the aggregate, have a balanced set of priorities for the country? What if people give all their money to cancer research and forget to fund the electrical grid? What if the laws written by ordinary citizens on a website are badly crafted and lead to unintended results?

I’m all for direct democracy, but I lived in California for 12 years, which does have referendums, and many people feel there are so many on the ballot each season, that they feel overwhelmed.

Comment from Craig
Time: April 4, 2010, 11:01

eatbees,

Why shouldn’t people living in the Middle East care what’s going on in the U.S.?

Well, I suppose my first objection is that people in the middle-east have a tendency to blame all of their own problems on other countries. When it comes to foreign policy, that may have some legs. When it comes to purely domestic issues? No, I don’t think so.

First, it often affects them directly…

Nope, sorry. US domestic issues do not affect them directly.

…and second there are a lot of people in the Middle East who are well-informed about the world generally.

Could have fooled me. Most of them seem to think teh US government is controlled by AIPAC and so on and so forth. I know people from the ME who have visited the US and have remarked on how much our news is “propaganda” because it doesn’t report the same things their news reports. People who have such opinions are not in tune with what’s going in in America at all. And sorry, but Americans like you aren’t helping with that any.

There’s this thing called the internet, and airplanes and global commerce, that mean we live in the same neighborhood, like it or not.

No, we certainly don’t. Sometimes we don’t even seem to be living on the same planet. It would be nice if giving people easy access to other cultures automatically granted understanding and tolerance, but that’s not the case.

That’s where a lot of the tensions of our era are coming from, and yes we should talk about it.

Who is “we”? You were condemning the US government for branding some Arab news media as propaganda outlets that promoted terrorism against Americans, weren’t you? Do you feel that you are an appropriate representative of the American people in such discussions?

By the way, in my three years of writing about the Middle East, I’ve never had anyone from the Middle East turn this around and say, “Who are you to write about us? You aren’t even one of us.” Does that mean they’re more tolerant than you are?

In my 6 years active on Arab blogs I’ve been told many times that I’m not welcome, and in very insulting and often racist language. Tolerant? No, I wouldn’t call Arabs in general tolerant at all. If you’ve never had any push-back on your views, that should tell you something. Right?

Here’s the internet phenomenon it sparked — over 34,000 hits. I just did people the favor of tracking down the original source, which is apparently so obscure that no one passing around this quote knows where it came from. But those passing it say themselves that it’s spreading like wildfire in their circles.

And do you even know who those people *and what their circles) are? I clicked on some of those links and it seems most of them are for anonymously posted comments. It seemed like you were claiming this was a big deal on the leading conservative cites.

You said this about five times, and frankly it’s kind of insulting.

Why? You seem to be admitting yourself that you left the US because you were disgruntled. Should we assume that you harbor the US no ill will? Do we assume disgruntled former employees harbor their former companies no ill will?

If you don’t think what I have to say is relevant, why are you spending so much time trying to refute it?

I’m not claiming it isn’t relevant. I’m claiming it is biased. And I’m trying to refute it because I think you do people in the ME a dis-service. They may not like the truth, but they deserve to know it. I don’t think they are getting it from you. Unfortunately, most Americans who I used to see on the Arab blogs are long gone… due to the treatment they received, as I pointed out earlier. Which leaves people like you as the only American voice many Arabs get to hear, other than on the news. Which you tell them is cooked :o

It’s true that I’m not a libertarian, but then neither were the Founders, or they wouldn’t have set up a government of rights and responsibilities in the first place.

I think you are confusing “libertarian” with “anarchist”. A common misunderstanding, since the two are so close on the political spectrum.

In the democratic process, we accept some limits on our freedoms for the common good. We have laws that prevent companies from dumping chemicals into the river (and etc)….

Yes. Safety and security. The difference between anarchists and libertarians is that libertarians believe government’s role is to provide safety and security to the people. Anarchists believe government has no role at all.

For instance, I believe the US government should only be involved with other countries politically to the extent necessary to protect US national security.

Where we disagree is how broadly the government should define the common interest.

See? You give the government power to “define” common interest. The PEOPLE define common interest. The role of the government is to PROTECT that common interest.

In all the other advanced democracies…

We aren’t them. Nor do we aspire to be them. To argue otherwise is un-American :p

What matters is that the decisions are made transparently, by popular vote. Can we agree on that?

No, we don’t agree on that. I don’t support direct democracy, and that’s not the system the founders gave us. Direct democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. The founders wrote much on this subject and it’s pointless for me to try to paraphrase them here when they argued the matter so eloquently, themselves. Their papers are out there on the internet, if you’re interested.

I do agree with Myrtus that we should have referendums on major issues that would bring in fundamental changes, just as we do with proposed amendments to the constitution.

Comment from Craig
Time: April 4, 2010, 11:38

Some Jefferson quotes in regards to war:

I kinda like this one:

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1470.htm

“For us to attempt by war to reform all Europe, and bring them back to principles of morality and a respect for the equal rights of nations, would show us to be only maniacs of another character.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Wirt, 1811. ME 13:56

I wonder what Jefferson would have to say about your assertion we should endeavor to be more like Europe? :D

Oh, but they’ve come so far since then! Haven’t they?

This one is good too:

“Peace… has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it… However, therefore, we may have been reproached for pursuing our Quaker system, time will affix the stamp of wisdom on it, and the happiness and prosperity of our citizens will attest its merit. And this, I believe, is the only legitimate object of government and the first duty of governors, and not the slaughter of men and devastation of the countries placed under their care in pursuit of a fantastic honor unallied to virtue or happiness; or in gratification of the angry passions or the pride of administrators excited by personal incidents in which their citizens have no concern.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41

And this:

“Peace and abstinence from European interferences are our objects, and so will continue while the present order of things in America remain uninterrupted.” –Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1802. ME 10:318

Abstinence from European interferences. What a great phrase! And yet, the US gets much criticism for it’s isolationist polices up to and including World War II. Including from some Americans.

“Our desire [is] to pursue ourselves the path of peace as the only one leading surely to prosperity, and our wish [is] to preserve the morals of our citizens from being vitiated by courses of lawless plunder and murder.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1793. ME 9:91

“We love and we value peace; we know its blessings from experience. We abhor the follies of war, and are not untried in its distresses and calamities. Unmeddling with the affairs of other nations, we had hoped that our distance and our dispositions would have left us free, in the example and indulgence of peace with all the world.” –Thomas Jefferson to Carmichael and Short, 1793. ME 9:159

Was he wrong?

Was he a libertarian?

“War is not the best engine for us to resort to; nature has given us one in our commerce, which, if properly managed will be a better instrument for obliging the interested nations of Europe to treat us with justice… Our object should now be to… endeavor so to form our commercial regulations as that justice from other nations shall be their mechanical result.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1797. ME 9:389

And a capitalist, too! The horror! :o

Comment from Montana
Time: April 8, 2010, 18:55

I love that they asked for “Public Defenders” (and they thought they could bring down our government), undercover FBI agent, sweet. Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) because they are haters not debaters or as others have dubbed them screamers not dreamers. The simpleton Tea baggers are the same whiners that were crying when the McCain/Bailin ticket lost. Now that their yelling and screaming failed to stop the health care debate and the bill from passing they are crying again. Lets face it the Republicans had eight years to deal with health care, immigration, climate change and financial oversight and governance and they failed. The Republicans are good at starting wars (two in eight years, with fat contracts to friends of Cheney/Bush) but not at winning wars as seen by the continuing line of body bags that keep coming home. Instead of participating in the health care debate of ideas the Republicans party turned inward to your old fashion obstructionist party. In my opinion the Republican Waterloo loss was caused by the party allowing a small portions (but very loud) of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” to take over their party. I will admit that this fringe is very good at playing “Follow the Leader” by listening to their dullard leaders, Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush, Savage, Sarah Bailin, Orly Taitz, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the Blowhards and acting as ill programmed robots. The Teaparty crowd think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around with face paint in the parks playing commando, the majority are mature and understand that the world is more complicated and grey than the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point. The world is complicated and presidents like Hamiliton, Lincoln, and Roosevelt believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although some Republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them, having no game plan/ vision for our country, are just going along and fanning the flames. For a party that gave us Abraham Lincoln, it is tragic that the ranks are filled with too many empty suits. But they now claim they have changed, come on, what sucker is going to believe that? All I can say to you is remember Waterloo.