On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:04:21 -0500, Ignoramus14315
wrote:

On 2011-07-09, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Hawke fired this volley in news:ivahok$81f$5
@speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, so was I. But my excuse is that back then I was young and stupid.

Bull.

To only _slightly_ turn Churchill's words, "When a man is young, if he is
not a Democrat, he has no heart. When a man is old, if he is not a
Republican, he has no brain."

I heard this too. My own personal development went in the opposite
direction. I started out as a libertarian and was obsessed with a
career and making money. After a while, the older I get, the more
liberal I become.

My sincere condolences, Ig, and I really mean that.


My first motivation is my disgust at the devolution of the Republican
party. Possibly, the Republican party has always been as bad as it is
now, but I just was not aware. I would have to dig into history, for
which I do not have time right now.

Both parties have devolved immensely since I started voting in 1972.
But remember, even old Uncle Will, 400 years ago, hated lawyers, and
most politicians come from that stock. Talk about an utterly inbred,
valueless lot...


Secondly, though most rich people and wannabe rich people I know are
libertarian, I believe that they have not considered things properly.

What would you change on or remove from the Libertarian platform?


The first thing a rich person needs is not even a low tax rate
(because it makes little difference as far as their well being is
concerned), but a stable society. And I do not believe that a stable
society can be promoted by deficits, endless wars, plunder of the
budget etc.

And you feel that your Dem party has removed deficits, ended wars, and
somehow saved the budget? Please give cites for anything even
remotely _imitating_ that.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice