I'll say it to your face. Where do you want to meet?

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

Is allegedly a Winston Churchill Quote, but none of the sources have.. well, the time of speech or publication it's written in.

Of course, the quote you're saying has about 70 variations, (Including one that just uses communism twice) and no one really knows who actually said it. Churchill center claims he didn't. Fascinating quote though, does it mean that conservatism comes from the efforts of a liberal youth, and one hopes to keep the changes they spent their years struggling for, or is it the ultimate resignation, things aren't going to get better, despite the fact things constantly change, so I'll try to stop the change anyway? As one grows older, new ideas are less valid to be considered?

For far too many, politics is less about the best method to improve ones self, one's people, one's country, one's world, and more about praising those of similar opinions and cursing those with different. Many answers, but no absolutes. Sadly, saying that is kinda like saying "Well, gee, being president is hard" like Bush said, but it is. Of course, if he didn't know that or realize that, umm, well, then that's deserving of mockery.

Best part about politics: Even when the results come in, people will disagree on what caused it. For instance: Democratic presidents ride the economic boom caused by Republican presidential policies that show their true effect about 1 year into their term. Some people believe that fervently. To disagree would demand proof, but like proving an atheist the existence of God, you need some pretty intense proof with the way politics are to convince someone. Sometimes, that proof just doesn't exist.

 I think the line item veto is a horrible idea also, both sides would just abuse it to hell and back, and I think we all know how much all politicians love to abuse their power. Also I definitely agree that the only way to permenantly put a stop to the stupidity that is pork is an amendment to the constitution.  But I also think that it is something that just about anyone can get behind....anyone except corrupt politicians lining their pockets that is.

I realise it is more than likely a pipe dream as the best way to make sure something never becomes a law is to have it be simple and basic common sense. 

 President's have very little effect on causing economic booms or busts, congress has a bit more effect, but the fed is much more influential on the course of the economy

I am not talking about the war, I am talking about government-run health care.  First off, I would say never assume, since you don't know my thoughts on the war in the least, nor are they related to government-run health care.

That said, yes, of course we could afford it.  We could afford 100% taxes if the government provided 100% of everything we need.  But you know what?  I don't like that system.  Not only don't I like that system, it's been tried before and failed miserably.  And that's what we'll be if government takes over health care:  miserable.  I'll say it again:  there is nothing in the history of government that has ever been run more efficiently than the private sector does it.  Sure, there are some things that by necessity must be run by the government (military, foreign relations and a few more), but making us pay more taxes because "we can afford it" is pretty dumb.  I don't know about you, but I'd rather make my own financial (and other) decisions instead of having the government screw them up for me.

Better in your opinion, surely?  But if you feel our country has become worse over the past 40-50 years I don't know what to tell you.  When life expectancy, quality of living and income all are drastically up, I don't feel anyone can say that with a straight face personally.

BTW, what bothered you so much about Reagan? 

I think it will suffice to say that no, I didn't mean to say our system is perfect.  Far from it.  There are a lot of things that should be changed.  But having the government take it over would be a horrible mistake.

Actually, Canada has been very involved with peacekeeping operations over the years, and also has a significant amount of forces currently in Afghanistan.  Please don't try to criticize what you know little/nothing about.

Everyone get this straight: Ron Paul is sincere and dedicated to his ideals and if elected he will work as hard as he can to make those ideals into national policy. He isn't a slave to special interests and he won't be if he gets into office.

HOWEVER

His ideals are somewhere between misguided and lunatic. He has absolutely no respect for Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" (he thinks the Founding Fathers intended no such thing) and he thinks it would be great if the church had more earthly power than the state (a.k.a. theocracy). He says that the Constitution is riddled with references to God (there are zero).

On the secular front, he is in favor of privatization and deregulation of pretty much EVERYTHING. Political theory aside, there are some areas where it is proven that the "invisible hand" does absolutely NOTHING to protect society from corporate depredations (the environment) and there are others where the private sector has proven completely incompetent (airlines).

He also thinks that there is a cabal/conspiracy to build a gigantic superhighway from Canada to Mexico as part of a master scheme to unite the entire continent into one economic entity -- one currency, etc. This is, um, not true.

Ron Paul has more honesty and integrity than any other Republican running for office. That doesn't mean you should vote for him, even if you're going to vote Republican.