Topics
Add New Topic
Facilities
From: 08/07/2010
178 Replies Last: 9/10/2010 7:55:52 PM
Misc
From: 09/09/2010
5 Replies Last: 9/10/2010 9:49:42 AM
Misc
From: 05/04/2009
138 Replies Last: 9/10/2010 6:10:51 AM
Facilities
From: 09/08/2010
4 Replies Last: 9/9/2010 7:02:09 PM
Misc
From: 09/02/2010
17 Replies Last: 9/8/2010 6:10:10 AM
Misc
From: 08/29/2010
7 Replies Last: 9/8/2010 12:02:17 AM
Facilities
From: 08/30/2010
64 Replies Last: 9/7/2010 12:57:24 PM
Administration
From: 09/01/2010
8 Replies Last: 9/2/2010 12:12:00 PM
Misc
From: 08/29/2010
10 Replies Last: 9/2/2010 9:34:46 AM
Web Site
From: 06/14/2010
3 Replies Last: 8/29/2010 10:51:53 PM
Misc
From: 08/26/2010
7 Replies Last: 8/28/2010 9:21:36 PM
Administration
From: 08/26/2010
7 Replies Last: 8/28/2010 10:52:27 AM
Academics
From: 08/13/2010
13 Replies Last: 8/28/2010 10:47:03 AM
Misc
From: 08/26/2010
0 Replies Last: 8/26/2010 11:04:08 AM
Athletics
From: 08/13/2010
9 Replies Last: 8/24/2010 8:02:50 PM
Misc
From: 08/10/2010
11 Replies Last: 8/23/2010 12:43:17 PM
Misc
From: 08/12/2010
9 Replies Last: 8/21/2010 12:40:23 PM
Athletics
From: 08/15/2010
17 Replies Last: 8/18/2010 11:30:35 AM
Academics
From: 08/13/2010
1 Replies Last: 8/13/2010 10:45:22 AM
Misc
From: 05/11/2010
30 Replies Last: 8/13/2010 10:19:03 AM
Athletics
From: 01/02/2010
225 Replies Last: 8/12/2010 8:05:59 PM
Misc
From: 07/08/2010
187 Replies Last: 8/9/2010 4:31:29 PM
Athletics
From: 06/14/2010
28 Replies Last: 7/27/2010 4:51:49 PM
Athletics
From: 04/23/2010
12 Replies Last: 7/19/2010 2:29:59 PM
Misc
From: 07/15/2010
6 Replies Last: 7/18/2010 11:56:52 PM
Athletics
From: 07/08/2010
4 Replies Last: 7/14/2010 6:21:46 PM
Subject: Why I Vote Democrat
38251 New Subject Score 7
WHY I VOTE DEMOCRAT
I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.
I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
I vote Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I vote Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq, I trust that the bad guys will stop what they are doing because they now think we are good people.
I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
I vote Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death-row inmates alive.
I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education and Social Security benefits.
I vote Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.
I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite The Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
I vote Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass that it is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view!
Anonymous on:1/17/2010 2:46:48 PM
38263 In Response To: 38251 Score -2
exactly!!
... on:1/19/2010 9:36:35 PM
38264 In Response To: 38263 Score -1
New Jersey, Virginia, and now, one of the most liberal states, Massachusetts. Who would have thought? Are you paying attention Obama? A storm is coming in 2010. If you don't pay heed, you'll be out of a job in 2012.
Anonymous on:1/19/2010 10:57:03 PM
38265 In Response To: 38264 Score -4
How about sooner. Impeach Him!
... on:1/19/2010 11:06:08 PM
38266 In Response To: 38265 Score 4
No doubt many are sympathetic, but to date, he has done nothing, as Bush did nothing, to warrant impeachment, so people should stop throwing that word around so much. I believe the qualifier there is "high crimes and misdemeanors". Be patient, but have resolve. It took us a Jimmy Carter to get us a Ronald Reagan. The 2010 midterm elections are likely to keep Obama in check, and then, in 2012, let's hope someone of Reagan's quality runs. At any rate, the democrats' contention that conservatism is dead was proved to be a lie last night in, of all states, Massachusetts. The liberal pundits and mainstream media may downplay it, but those seeking relection next year will most certainly not ignore the message that was sent.
Anonymous on:1/20/2010 7:01:04 AM
38268 In Response To: 38266 Score 0
Only a year into Obama's presidency, and where has all that hype about "hope" and "change" gotten us? The democrats even have both the House and Senate, and what have they done? Make no mistake, conservatism never went away. There are elements of it in the democratic party, and the independents who voted for Obama were obviously voting anti-establishment, meaning anti-big government, not anti-conservative. Now that "The One" has reminded us all what big and intrusive government is really all about, get ready for some real change in 2010. New Jersey, Virgina, Massachusetts...the signs are all there.
Anonymous_204018606202 on:1/20/2010 12:35:56 PM
38271 In Response To: 38268 Score 1
I'm not real happy with much of what the Obama administration has done in many respects either, but isn't it a little early to start pounding our chests? The man still has three years left. If by that time the economy is rolling along, and it does show signs of coming around, yesterdays Massachusett's election will be long forgotten. We are a nation of "what have you done for me lately" people. Let's not forget that as of right now, today, there doesn't seem to be a viable candidate from the other side that would be any better. JMHO
independent on:1/20/2010 2:28:38 PM
38277 In Response To: 38271 Score -1
I agree, to a certain extent. Obama should not necessarily be judged solely on his first year, as Bush, who had a relatively good first seven years, considering the attack on America and subsequent War on Terror, should not be judged solely on his last year. Plus, it takes much more than just one person to cause change, for good or bad. Let's not forget who was in control of the House and Senate, the democrats, for Bush's last two years. Now then, here's where I disagree. Much of the vote for Obama was clearly a vote against the established government at the time. In his first year, however, both he and the democratic House and Senate have done a number of things to create an even bigger and more intrusive government, angering the populace as a result. Not the least among these are attempting to take over the healthcare industry, bailing out a number of private industries, escalating the national debt to an absurd height, and focusing more on things like granting rights to terrorists than getting our people back to work. The backroom deals, such as the "Louisana Purchase", during the whole healthcare process have also been very telling, in and of themselves. Rather than being an agent of change, then, as he and others promoted, he has been more of the same, even worse. As a result, New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts, all of which voted for him, have now gone republican. All the democrats have to do to retain their power is listen to the people and govern more from the center, but they seem intent on not doing that. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The reality is... on:1/20/2010 5:29:24 PM
38278 In Response To: 38271 Score 0
And by the way, concering the other side not having any "viable candidates", there are many, among them Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney, all of whom have promoted smaller government, and all of whom have vastly more experience and wisdom than Obama.
The reality is... on:1/20/2010 5:48:26 PM
38279 In Response To: 38278 Score 0
Wow! Now those are some good candidates. NOT!!! How about Scott Brown.
Get real on:1/20/2010 6:58:00 PM
38280 In Response To: 38279 Score -2
If you like Scott Brown, he is much more aligned with Gingrich, Huckabee, and Romney than Obama, so you shouldn't be so dismissive. The only thing Brown has in common with Obama is his relative inexperience. Once he is in the Senate for a few years, if he doesn't become corrupted by it, then yes, he would be a good candidate.
The reality is... on:1/20/2010 7:03:12 PM
38292 In Response To: 38278 Score 2
Those are all retreads or people that have not had much tread in the first place. Huckabee????isn't he the guy that pardoned or paroled some prisoner in his home state so that he could then proceed to kill again or whatever the specifics were? See this is part of the Republicans problem as independents see it. They start to make head way and then trot out all the same old losers. Try again. You spoke of governing from the center but as you stated, the Democrats don't seem to want to do that. Neither do the Republicans. They just want to do it from the complete opposite side. Perhaps they too need to lean more towards the center.
Independent on:1/21/2010 8:24:48 AM
38293 In Response To: 38268 Score -3
Do you see what I see?
Our school district is being run like our government right now. Maybe we should be teaching our children to spend money they don't have. O wait that's not right they do have the money it comes from mommy and daddy.
These are the so called educated leading us and teaching our children?! Now someone tell me where you learned that spending money you don't have gets you out of trouble. Hmm...
... on:1/21/2010 8:40:40 AM
38294 In Response To: 38268 Score -2
Do you see what I see?
Our school district is being run like our government right now. Maybe we should be teaching our children to spend money they don't have. O wait that's not right they do have the money it comes from mommy and daddy.
These are the so called educated leading us and teaching our children?! Now someone tell me where you learned that spending money you don't have gets you out of trouble. Hmm...
... on:1/21/2010 8:40:42 AM
38295 In Response To: 38294 Score -4
The problem is not local -- when will you folks understand that beating up the local school board and administration does nothing more than give you a headache and cause acrimony within the community? All of the major issues and decisions are made at the state and federal level. There is very little latitude in local decision making.
Direct your anger where it needs to be, at Harrisburg and Washington. Locally, all they board and administration can do is try to keep it somewhat down the middle of the road and out of the ditches. Give them a little credit for doing a good job once in a while. We are not the best, but we are far from the worst. It's not their fault that we do not have a commercial and industrial tax base to offset residential property taxes. That is the difference between us and all of the other lower taxed districts in the county.
Of course, a good re-assessment would do wonders around here. Maybe the landed gentry with their stone farmhouses and acres of land and outbuildings can start paying their fair share instead of being subsidized by the rest of us. Imagine, having a home assessed on the tax roles at $100K and being worth $400K+. Only in Berks County could conditions exist like this.
OK, go back to your normal activities and flame away.
amused2 on:1/21/2010 9:09:01 AM
38296 In Response To: 38295 Score -1
You mean we don't really have local control of the district?
Question Man on:1/21/2010 9:21:19 AM
38297 In Response To: 38295 Score -1
I discuss the pending budget issues on my Superintendent's Forum which can be accessed on the district's website. Comments are welcomed.
Martin Hndler on:1/21/2010 9:49:33 AM
38299 In Response To: 38295 Score 0
Perhaps the district could start asking for appeals on what some of these large stone houses, situated on their large tracts of land, complete with stone cottages are assesed at. It might help those that truly need the help.
Anonymous on:1/21/2010 10:10:51 AM
38300 In Response To: 38292 Score 0
Do a little research on Huckabee before you regurgitate the usual liberal rhetoric. No, he did not pardon that guy, but made him eligible for parole on a juvenile offense, for which he was certified as an adult. A parole board subsequently deemed him worthy of parole, and between that time and now, he had numerous other arrests before he murdered those four officers. I believe he was actually out on bail for a sex offense when he did that, so there have been many other people opening up the door for him since Huckabee. Have you been watching MSNBC?
The reality is... on:1/21/2010 10:50:33 AM
38301 In Response To: 38295 Score 2
Oh, "amused2". Concerned with people who own stone farm houses paying their "fair share". You are all about redistribution, aren't you? I'd rather have those with multiple children utilizing the school system pay their "fair share". Now, go into your long speech, and don't forget to add Hillary's quote, "It takes a community." You make me sick.
Anonymous on:1/21/2010 11:04:22 AM
38302 In Response To: 38300 Score -1
So what you are saying is if Huckabee had not made him eligible for parole he might not have done those other things? Liberal rhetoric is no different then conservative rhetoric just at complete opposite ends of the scale.
Anonymous on:1/21/2010 11:17:32 AM
38303 In Response To: 38301 Score 5
You made my day! I was wondering when you would jump in with your twisted justifications. So predictable.
So, you think that it's right for valuable properties to be assessed at lower rates than others and therefore have a lower tax bill? So, if my brood (6 kids) and I decide to purchase one of the glorious properties around here for $500K with a $100K assessment, you think that it's OK to pay $2900 a year in school taxes on that place for my expensive home and to educate my 6 kids. And it's also OK for my parents to downsize to a new little home that they just built for $200K and that new home gets a $200K assessment, it's OK for them to pay $4800 in school taxes? Help me follow your logic.
See pal, you always mix apples and oranges. The system that we have is based on assessed values, which should be somewhat dynamic to avoid the disparaties that exist right now. Someone drew a line back in 1995 and assessments have not changed since then. And since spot assessments are illegal, nothing short of a countywide re-assessment will correct the disparities that have grown since that date. That is the issue.
You try to confuse things by inserting the number of children a property owner has into the mix. That's fine if you want to have that argument with the Commonwealth of PA for a new school tax structure, but it has nothing to do with the current formula for collecting school taxes.
Have a nice day!
amused2 on:1/21/2010 11:36:54 AM
38306 In Response To: 38302 Score -2
Right on...
Anonymous_64017901030218 on:1/21/2010 12:06:05 PM
38308 In Response To: 38303 Score 1
What was "so predictable" is your long-winded rhetoric. Fascinating how you always seem to argue in defense of taxes and the tax system. Tells us so much about you.
Anonymous on:1/21/2010 1:03:08 PM
38309 In Response To: 38308 Score -3
I must be a dope and can't comprehend things as well as you. I didn't see where Amused2 was defending taxes, he/she only pointed out the error of your thought process on how the size of a brood should affect taxes. I noticed you didn't defend your defenseless position. If it is the size of a family that you want to be considered in how you pay taxes then you better hippity hop on out to Harrisburg because that is the only place that will change the way we fund our schools.
Anonymous on:1/21/2010 1:47:09 PM
38311 In Response To: 38309 Score -2
Yes, you are a dope. "Amused2" has a history of criticizing anyone who criticizes the amount/method of taxation, as you are obviously inclined to do as well.
Anonymous on:1/21/2010 3:35:57 PM
38312 In Response To: 38311 Score -3
The real dopes are the ones who criticize the amount/method of taxation on this website. Do you think it will help change it if you talk about it here? Why not discuss ways to make the district better. Oh yeah, dope me, I forgot you don't give a rat's ass about the district, only your selfish self.
Anonymous on:1/21/2010 3:52:25 PM
38314 In Response To: 38312 Score 2
Oh, I'm sure you have a "rat's ass". Sorry, comrade, for caring more about my family than your "district".
Anonymous on:1/21/2010 5:01:06 PM
38315 In Response To: 38314 Score -3
It's OUR district since you choose to continue living here.
Anonymous on:1/22/2010 7:46:41 AM
38316 In Response To: 38295 Score -3
Amused2 can you tell me who lobbies for or to keep the way the school taxes were done or are done now. Is it possible that the large teachers union and the adminstration persons could help in changing this issue. You would think if they are there to help our children they be more then willing to work on this.
... on:1/22/2010 8:38:32 AM
38318 In Response To: 38316 Score -1
I can only give you my macro view of things, because I'm not in education, I just try to stay educated on how things work. So, for what it's worth, here is my two cents:
The state doesn't want to raise taxes, because they want to be able to say at re-election time that they did not raise taxes. Therefore, the pressure for each district to be self-sustaining is enormous. And, believe it or not, property taxes are not a big issue statewide. So for the state pols, doing nothing to change the system is the right thing to do politically.
Politicians live to get re-elected and they are able to do that by cutting deals and receiving contributions from supporters. The teachers union/lobby is enormous and very integrated into politics, especially in the cities. They spend a ton of money each and every year to make sure that your politicians keep the system exactly how it is, protected and ingrained. Administration is not as organized or protected, but because they grew up in the system, they tend to think of it as the norm and have no incentive to change it.
Pennsylvania is also a prevailing wage state. Any project that has a value over $25,000 has to be paid at union wages, which can be anywhere from 30-50% higher. That system benefits no one but the union workers. It is taxpayer paid graft to the unions. But, the unions also give a lot of money to the politicians at the state level to keep this side deal alive. It hurts the local taxpayer, because we have to pay this premium, but they don't really care. All of the Northeastern states have the same laws, as opposed to Right to Work states which do not. Are you starting to see a pattern here?
The only power that we have is to form a grassroots effort to apply an equal amount of pressure to the state politicians to bring about reform that will benefit the taxpayers and not the ingrained unions. But that is a tough thing, because many people are union members and although they don't like the high property taxes, they live off of this system, it is their bread and butter. But, as they did with Beth Steel and Mack and many other industrial powerhouses, they are slowly strangling the goose that gave them the golden egg. They don't know when to quit until it's too late.
Anyway, I could write a lot more, but Last Word Larry is going to accuse me of spouting rhetoric again. I don't think it's rhetoric, it is just the system and the more you know about it, the better you will understand it and why things are the way that they are. Beating up the locals, be it admin or teachers or school board will have no effect on changing the rigged game. The only way to affect change is to get active for statewide change -- but know full well, you are trying to fight a monster.
amused2 on:1/22/2010 10:06:59 AM
38319 In Response To: 38318 Score -6
Nice job explaining it. Facts and a little common sense are not rhetoric. The dopes will never get it though.
Anonymous on:1/22/2010 10:15:25 AM
38320 In Response To: 38319 Score -7
I do not believe that paying a worker prevailing wage helps only the unions. I believe in paying workers a livable wage.
Anonymous_21601620890130 on:1/22/2010 11:43:56 AM
38321 In Response To: 38320 Score -5
Other than the union workers who benefits from prevailing wage?
Anonymous on:1/22/2010 11:56:55 AM
38322 In Response To: 38319 Score -9
Thanks -- most of it IS common sense.
amused2 on:1/22/2010 12:12:25 PM
38323 In Response To: 38320 Score -5
Spoken as as a loyal dues paying member of the PSEA, no doubt. Or, maybe a member of the SEIU.
amused also on:1/22/2010 12:17:38 PM
38324 In Response To: 38320 Score -8
Good for you. Does that mean that you hire a union roofer for your house and pay the inflated rate, or would you hire the non-union roofer who gives you the same quality and service -- at a rate that is 30% less?
amused2 on:1/22/2010 12:17:41 PM
38325 In Response To: 38321 Score -1
Non-union workers on prevailing wage jobs benefit in that they receive union-based rates for the work that they do. So yes, they benefit. If the law did not exist, they would be paid at their normal rate and the school & taxpayer would get a project at a lower cost.
The law is in place to keep the union companies competitive so that technically everyone has to pay the same inflated labor cost. This keeps the union companies competitive against the nonunion companies and protects the union worker.
amused2 on:1/22/2010 12:26:59 PM
38326 In Response To: 38325 Score -6
Once again explained crystal clear. Thanks.
Anonymous on:1/22/2010 1:49:33 PM
38327 In Response To: 38325 Score -7
"Amused2", do you ever just shut up? If you actually talk as much as you type, and with the same elitist, narcissistic ego, your family must be miserable. As long as you're happy, though.
Anonymous on:1/22/2010 1:52:45 PM
38328 In Response To: 38327 Score -12
At least he was somewhat critical, for a change, of unions, although he was incorrect in claiming that "many people" are union members. I believe the figure in 2009 was somewhere around 13%, so hardly "many". With all the problems they create, could you imagine if a majority of workers were union members? This country would come to a standstill.
The reality is... on:1/22/2010 2:31:33 PM
38329 In Response To: 38320 Score -10
Then why do you have a problem with taxes? They obviously are just trying to pay everyone a living wage....
Isn't it nice how that arguement works both ways? :)
Slightly Confused on:1/22/2010 3:49:05 PM
38330 In Response To: 38325 Score -2
Artificially increasing the wage doesn't help the non-union workers. A good case could be made that it hurts everyone. You would have to take into account all the construction that isn't done or drastically scaled back because the cost is too high. Everybody gets paid nothing if their is no job.
Amused2 made some very good points. Here is an example of how the game is played. Parents of red headed kids band together and push for some special program for their ginger kids. They find some representative(s) to go along and pass a bill mandating the new programs. The backers in Harrisburg or DC are now considered heroes. They get the support of the parents, have their name in the paper along with their picture with grateful parents for their untiring commitment to red headed kids.
The LOCAL school boards then have raise taxes or cut programs to pay for it. Then have to hear often the same people complain about that increase or program elimination.
The representatives in Harrisburg would have to be crazy to change to some total state controlled means of raising revenues. Then they would have to find ways to pay for their hair brained ideas. They may not always be the sharpest knife in the drawer but they are crafty.
For wealthy areas property taxes are not that big of a deal. Some of it is paid for by business but only pass through the cost in higher prices. They are paid for through their mortgage so they never have to sit down and write out the check. They are also one of the few remaining tax write-offs for people with high-incomes.
Robert Lowry on:1/22/2010 3:50:00 PM
38331 In Response To: 38330 Score -8
"For wealthy areas property taxes are not that big of a deal." I have yet to live in an area, or hear of an area, where the majority of people do not complain about the taxes, especially the school taxes. What walls are you people living behind... the school walls?
Anonymous on:1/22/2010 4:19:20 PM
38335 In Response To: 38331 Score -5
I didn't say they didn't complain but it isn't a high priority issue. Why do you think for all the talk nothing gets changed? They may complain but they also don't want to risk losing the educational and extra-curricular advantages by converting to some statewide formula.
The smartest thing the Federal Gov't ever did was to have income tax deducted from pay checks and then at the end of the year give some back. If everyone had to sit down and write out a check to the IRS for the full amount every April 15th then there would be big changes in DC. Now people receive a refund and think they outsmarted the gov't.
Anonymous_208010101350247 on:1/23/2010 8:59:12 AM
38336 In Response To: 38318 Score -11
So what you are saying the system will have to colapse to bring about a sytem that would be good for most of the people. But if that happened you would have the bottom feeders trying to get into power.
Just sounds like most people are just plain greedy and really don't want the best for future generations even tough they say they do.
Thanks for yoiur insite
... on:1/23/2010 11:47:34 AM
38337 In Response To: 38336 Score -14
i vote democrat becuase people like this exist =)
stupidliberalteenagenoitallpunkunwiseinexperiencedstudent! on:1/23/2010 4:36:28 PM
38338 In Response To: 38336 Score -13
You speak of "greed". I've often heard that thrown about. The opposite side of that coin is "envy", you know. Now, generally speaking, when conservatives, those whom are normally labeled as "greedy", are in power, they call for scaled-back government and less taxes...hardly "greedy", whereas when democrats, those who are normally labeled as "envious" are in power, they call for bigger government and higher taxes, definitely "envious", to the point where they force their will onto others.
Anonymous on:1/23/2010 5:33:50 PM
38339 In Response To: 38338 Score -6
Come to think of it, "envy" and "greed" go hand in hand, don't they? Because the democrats, generally speaking, are envious of what others have, they are greedy in taking it.
Anonymous on:1/23/2010 6:25:33 PM
38395 In Response To: 38264 Score -2
are you kidding? the same dumb asses that voted him in the first time will vote him in for a 2nd term
john q public on:1/29/2010 11:43:44 AM
38548 In Response To: 38339 Score -2
Excellent quote, from a Frenchman, of all people: Americans, said Alex de Tocqueville, have a desire for equality that borders on an obsession, and an impatient passion for physical gratification. To combine the two, our fault is that we want stuff that other people have, and we want it now. This fault could lead us, step by step, into a kind of servitude to a government that would cater to our fault. Tocqueville called this "soft despotism." His words are well worth quoting at length, and have the air of a prophecy, in which he envisioned that "an immense tutelary power is elevated [above the people], which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living? So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of free will from each citizen. Equality has prepared men for all these things: it has disposed them to tolerate them and often even to regard them as a benefit. Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one's acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd." Obviously, this is a far different kind of totalitarianism than found in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, but it is just as pervasive and deadly. The way that it destroys intermediate institutions is by neglect, by luring the individual away from the active love and care of his family and local community, away from the care of his soul and immortal destiny in his worship of God, to a life of menial toil in a tangle of bureaucratic regulations, punctuated with the reward of endless trivial amusements.
Anonymous on:2/19/2010 7:25:13 AM
38878 In Response To: 38251 Score 1
What are your grounds for impeachment?
Oh, and to be grammatically correct....it's "Vote Democratic".
I would never say, "Vote Republic".
Anonymous_1640156010402 on:3/15/2010 3:09:25 PM
39484 In Response To: 38251 Score -1
You vote democrate because you are a stupid idiot who wants to be taken care of by everyone else
Jon Galt on:5/9/2010 8:13:18 PM