Your argument assumes that the people ultimately receive the land in suzerainty from their government, as though this republican, representative government somehow rules sovereign like a king. I categorically disagree with that notion. The ultimate sovereign in our Republic is the people themselves; they own their land and the government has no claim to it. That's the reason why I vehemently disagree with property taxes (as did the Founding Fathers), because they effectively declare that citizens do not own their own land but instead rent it from the government. The only property rightfully owned by the government is that which it purchases for its necessary functions. Everything else is in the hands of the people, and there is no reason why they should pay tribute on that which is rightfully theirs.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

DJ - Bill Clinton was a social liberal but our last fiscally conservative President. From a financial perspective only, he was 10 times more Republican than GWB.

Myself, I'm registered Libertarian. I think Libertarians are a bunch of nutcases but their philosophy is the closest to mine. Democrats want to be your mom, Republicans want to be your dad. I hate them both. I like making my own decisions, for better or worse.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I just think it's stupid to let a person's political position influence their status as a person you consider a friend. Granted their political whining or bragging may be annoying but outside of election times a person's political stance rarely matters. I don't think a person's political opinion should completely affect the way you view that person. And despite the connections people can make it shouldn't be a reflection of their personality or personal morality.

For most Americans political stance basically points to their history, their parents and what classes or sect of society they were raised in; few voters tend to be critical thinkers. For most voters instead of seeing "Politician A vs. Politician B vs. Politician C" they see "Democrat vs. Republican vs. Independent." Instead of separating candidates into their stances and particular knowledge of the issues or researching a candidates background they will be voting for what they see at face value. I myself agree with different politicians on different issues at varying levels making it impossible to actually approve or pick one over the other.

It's like a rivalry in sports. For us Wisconsinites an proper example might be whatever party you favor is the Packers and the other party is the Vikings. Nothing the Vikings say will make you agree with them, they're the fricking Vikings for God's sake! It's about time people actually started learning about who and what they're voting for and realizing that the majority of politicians are schmucks or power players.