I wondered what you guys thought of this. It was sent to me by a staunch republican.


Becoming Republican
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'
Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

It's a bit long but why haven't you political gurus chimed in.
I want to know how this feels, thinks out to a "politically correct" mind. My mind is in the land of ignorance and bliss.

My mind is in the land of ignorance and bliss.No it isn't - you're trying for that "personal responsibility" angle on liberal vs conservative whilst trying to make the republican angle look good and making the liberal angle look foolish. It's been tried before.

Actually, the message was sent around and came up in conversation. I didn't know what to think as my mind is in the land of ignorance and bliss. I don't give a rat's a$$ who does what in the political world. I do enjoy understanding the gist of a conversation that is going on.

So, no, NeedKarma, I was not trying to make anyone's angle seem anything. Just wanted some thoughts from those who have an angle. Sorry you misunderstood.

Actually, the message was sent around and came up in conversation. I didn't know what to think as my mind is in the land of ignorance and bliss. I don't give a rat's a$$ who does what in the political world. I do enjoy understanding the gist of a conversation that is going on.

So, no, NeedKarma, I was not trying to make anyone's angle seem anything. Just wanted some thoughts from those who have an angle. Sorry you misunderstood.No I didn't misunderstand. Yesterday you also posted:https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/why-media-pushing-obama-so-hard-234057-7.html#post1166566

The US government is busy giving our money to those who have not earned it.So I believe that you knew what you posted here and are playing the innocent card... not well though.
Alos you believe that Obama is some kind of anti-christ so you seem to actually give a rat's a$$.

What I think of it is that portraying all government spending as nothing more than stealing from the (worthy) rich to give to the (unworthy) poor is inaccurate and dishonest. There are many MANY kinds of investment that contribute immensely to the common good, but that private enterprise will not and cannot undertake, for example: legal infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, military forces, communication infrastructure, public education, police protection, to name just a few.

What it really comes down to is whether you believe in society and community as a shared endeavor, or whether you just want to grab all you can and screw everybody else.
YOYO (You're On Your Own) vs. WITT (We're In This Together) (http://www.curethis.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=164)

You won't get any criticism from the lib/fascists because this is exactly what they believe. I think it quite a nice anecdote. The problem is that after eight years of 'compassionate conservatism', there may not be many Republicans left.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith
Otherwise, how do you know what is important?

I liked it!

Very similar to one of my posts about the little girl and the homeless man.

Boy did the libs get bitter and angry over that one.

The truth seems to be very painful for some to hear, and accept.

NK, Perhaps I did play the innocent, not too well. I have great respect for your keen intelect and was hurt when you turned that brilliance on me and found me wanting.

However, I do not believe Obama is the Antichrist. It's just something I heard. Don't care if he isn't or is. Politics is something I have pointedly ignored for the past 30+ years and learning about it now, finally, seemed like a good idea. But heated debates surrounding something I'm just learning about is disconcerting. Reading about it seems to delve into the same pattern of bickering.

I just want to hear what people think, want to hear you thinking. Getting my ideas dissected is a disapointment. My only agenda is to learn, then maybe, I'll vote.

Well, Simone, what you want to know about politics, more than anything else? And, I don't mean who or what to vote for? What is your numero uno question?

1. During the time(s) when you feel that America was working at its best, what type of politics were instrumental in its functionality? Could those politics be effective today?

2. How did the behavior and attitudes of the population as a whole support America working at its best in your opinion?

1. During the time(s) when you feel that America was working at its best, what type of politics were instrumental in its functionality? Could those politics be effective today?
Can we agree that America is somewhat unique in that the founders established a federal government that was 'hands off', for the most part? Of course, states were allowed to do many things regulating intrastate relationships (marriage, contracts, land ownership, criminal code, contracts, etc.). In a word, the U.S. was so large and the people so free that 'laissez faire' became the order of the day. See the definition: "Laissez-faire (pronunciation: French, [lɛsefɛʁ] (help·info); English, ˌleɪseɪˈfɛər (help·info)) is a French phrase literally meaning "Let do." From the French diction first used by the eighteenth century physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for 19th-century capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism was the economic system before the Progressive Era[2] and the Keynesian revolution.[3] It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed a minimal of economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights.[4]" Laissez-faire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire)
I suppose you will have to refine the definition of "best", but there's no question that since WWII there has been an explosion of wealth and technology that benefits everyone; remember hearing about 'trickle down'?

...2. How did the behavior and attitudes of the population as a whole support America working at its best in your opinion?
Generally, people do not need or require a 'nanny' government. They do not need mandates from the capitols of the states or Washington, DC. America has provided a home-base for individualism: "In political philosophy, the individualist theory of government holds that the state should protect the liberty of individuals to act as they wish as long they do not infringe on the liberties of others. This contrasts with collectivist political theories, where, rather than leaving individuals to pursue their own ends, the state ensures that the individual serves the whole society. The term has also been used to describe "individual initiative" and "freedom of the individual." This theory is described well by "laissez faire," which means in French "let [the people] do" [for themselves what they know how to do]." Individualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism)
We have never lived in a pure state of 'laissez-faire' or 'individualism'. But over time these concepts have waned, and never so much as during the New Deal and the Great Society. All is not lost, however, because I agree with George W. Bush that all people hunger for freedom in their lives; the difference between Americans and Iraqis is that we have a heritage based upon individual freedom, not pervasive government intervention in our daily lives. Neil Boortz has a lot to say about this in a recent article: "It's all about you, your wants and needs. Look for the politician who promises to transfer the most wealth from the achievers to you ... and that's the politician who gets your vote." boortz.com: Nealz Nuze January 02, 2008 (http://boortz.com/nuze/200801/01022008.html)

What I think of it is that portraying all government spending as nothing more than stealing from the (worthy) rich to give to the (unworthy) poor is inaccurate and dishonest. There are many MANY kinds of investment that contribute immensely to the common good, but that private enterprise will not and cannot undertake, for example: legal infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, military forces, communication infrastructure, public education, police protection, to name just a few.

What it really comes down to is whether you believe in society and community as a shared endeavor, or whether you just want to grab all you can and screw everybody else.
YOYO (You're On Your Own) vs. WITT (We're In This Together) (http://www.curethis.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=164)


I agree. It conflates two separate issues. One is to do with personal achievement and reward based on merit, the other is about the sort of world we want to live in. It's a cute juxtaposition of ideas, but that's about all. Oh, it's politically loaded too :)

Once upon a time, there was an old man and a little girl. One day the old man found a sandwich. He knew that the little girl was very hungry, but because he was one who found the sandwich, he thought it would be wrong to give any of it to her. "this will teach her," he said, and he ate the sandwich himself. Then the little girl died.

Do you think this is a story that accurately portrays conservative republicans? It's just like yours.

You posted a very stupid story with a very stupid message. I am genuinely surprised that other posters could even feign support of it. Simon, I'm glad NK caught you lying.

Simon:"However, I do not believe Obama is the Antichrist. It's just something I heard. Dont care if he isn't or is."

I just wanted to make sure I got this last quote right. Let's take a moment to let it shine like a pretty star. Now we know what kind of a nut-job you really are.

Hi linnealand, you've put forward so many thoughtful words in other posts that I'm surprised we're so far apart in our approach on this one. This is how I see it:

We all have different levels of experience and knowledge to bring to a topic as well as different mind-sets, and we each go about arguing our point of view differently, with our own inherent strengths and weaknesses. Within a democracy, there ought to be room for everyone.

As far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether someone agrees with me or not or has an agenda I'm not aware of (I avoid party politics), I would rather give someone the benefit of a doubt and prefer to give my opinion without resorting to name calling or belittling. Since few of us are hard-nosed politicians, it might also happen that by giving my opinion in a non-confrontational way a more open discussion can take place that we can all possibly benefit from.

It would be boring if everyone held my point of view and I don't expect it to happen too often. And I'll admit that sometimes a good shake-up is what's needed - it just isn't my usual way of doing things.

Generally, people do not need or require a 'nanny' government. They do not need mandates from the capitols of the states or Washington, DC. America has provided a home-base for individualism: "In political philosophy, the individualist theory of government holds that the state should protect the liberty of individuals to act as they wish as long they do not infringe on the liberties of others. This contrasts with collectivist political theories, where, rather than leaving individuals to pursue their own ends, the state ensures that the individual serves the whole society. The term has also been used to describe "individual initiative" and "freedom of the individual." This theory is described well by "laissez faire," which means in French "let [the people] do" [for themselves what they know how to do]." Individualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism)
We have never lived in a pure state of 'laissez-faire' or 'individualism'. But over time these concepts have waned, and never so much as during the New Deal and the Great Society. All is not lost, however, because I agree with George W. Bush that all people hunger for freedom in their lives; the difference between Americans and Iraqis is that we have a heritage based upon individual freedom, not pervasive government intervention in our daily lives. Neil Boortz has a lot to say about this in a recent article: "It's all about you, your wants and needs. Look for the politician who promises to transfer the most wealth from the achievers to you ... and that's the politician who gets your vote." boortz.com: Nealz Nuze January 02, 2008 (http://boortz.com/nuze/200801/01022008.html)

That was interesting until you muddled the ideal of individual freedom and non-government intervention with the fate of the Iraqi people, George.

once upon a time, there was an old man and a little girl. one day the old man found a sandwich. he knew that the little girl was very hungry, but because he was one who found the sandwich, he thought it would be wrong to give any of it to her. "this will teach her," he said, and he ate the sandwich himself. then the little girl died.

do you think this is a story that accurately portrays conservative republicans? it's just like yours.

you posted a very stupid story with a very stupid message. i am genuinely surprised that other posters could even feign support of it. simon, i'm glad NK caught you lying.
.
A principle can be effectively illustrated by the use of parables (A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson) and allegories (An allegory is a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal). See Wikipedia. The message of this post is one you must not agree with, but it is certainly not stupid. It points out 'hypocrisy', "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion." In the 2008 U.S. election, the voters will be choosing whether to elect the hypocrite's exemplar, Obama, to president of the USA.

Okay, I admit that calling simon a nut-job was not nice of me. I will also admit that I haven't seen the original conversation referenced above about whether obama is the antichrist, but it sounds like name-calling to me if I've ever seen it. And, for clarity, the reason I called simon a nut-job (meaning crazy) is that he said he doesn't care whether a potential president is the "antichrist" or not. I would care about something like that. ;)

Let me also promise you that I love american ideological diversity. And before my post has people sure as the light of day that I'm a liberal democrat, I would like to make it clear that I'm actually registered as independent. For me, it's about supporting whatever candidate I think is right for the job, be he or she republican, democrat or something else.

I do have a problem with the story, which is AWFUL. I think it has to be the worst thing I've ever seen outside of an email forward. It takes a complex situation and simplifies it to smithereens, until, in my opinion, it no longer relates to real issues. In fact, in my opinion, the story in my post is just like it: completely manipulative.

It's total propaganda, and there are so many attacks in it against so many people, ideas and institutions that it's hard to keep up. It pretends to be an honest little story, and then it's chockablock with large and little jabs against liberal democrats and anything associated with them. Let's do a little dissecting to see what I mean.

These were especially obnoxious lines:

"Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his."

"The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father."

Here are some other descriptions of the daughter (aka liberal democrat):
"deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed"
"she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire"
"she answered rather haughtily"
"angrily fired back"

And how is the father described (aka conservative republican)?
Wise, winking, gentle, and smiling.

It also implies that the poor are poor because all they do is party and drink. Let's look at this one: "'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'" is that what the poor in america are all busy doing? Because I thought a lot of them were working their tails off for minimum wage that still won't pay their bills. Also, I don't believe that the children of the poor are out partying and getting drunk, do you? So why is that being implied in the story?

I know what parables and allegories are. But let's not put this in the same category as plato's description of the cave. What was posted is nothing more than a wolf of spin in sheep's clothing.

Fran, I just wanted to add a little thank you for your complimentary words. I really do enjoy this forum, and I'm glad to be a part of this community. I will say that I have a passion for politics that heats me up, but it's really out of my tremendous love for the field and a true desire to bring out the best of our nation. America would not be america without discourse, and I do believe that ideological debate is beautiful. Propaganda is one of my greatest passions, so when I see it (and when I don't like how it's done), I get a little feisty. I hope you understand that what I wrote came from the feeling that he was going to get away with passing this story off as an innocent little lamb when that's not what it is. I'm allergic to those kinds of things. It's nothing personal, and I intend no hard feelings when the conversation is done! I do enjoy seeing all of you in the threads, and I look forward to having good conversations with you (at all levels) in the future. All the best to you!

p.p.s. george, while I appreciate the fact that you contribute the way you do, I am a little confused by your last post. When it comes to the real issues, what do you think makes liberals/democrats hypocrites? And what makes obama the "hypocrite's exemplar"?

p.p.s. I would love to continue this chat, but if I'm not back to respond tomorrow, it's not because I'm not interested. I will be leaving to spend a month in calabria in the south of italy. I'm really looking forward to massaging out my stresses on its lovely beaches. Best wishes to all of you!

In the 2008 U.S. election, the voters will be choosing whether or not to elect the hypocrite's exemplar, Obama, to president of the USA.
What evidence do you have that Obama is "feigning to be what he is not, or to believe what he does not"? If he is who he claims to be, and says what he actually believes, wouldn't it make him like Jesus?

All I know for sure is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to simultaneously be or believe all that he has been accused of being or believing. You may think he's a fool, but you can't prove he's a hypocrite. That's what I think about GWB, and why I find him so frightening, so believe me, I feel your pain.

What evidence do you have that Obama is "feigning to be what he is not, or to believe what he does not"? ...

You are kidding, right? "Obama’s U-turn on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last week was not so trivial. He had promised to filibuster it if it retained the provision immunizing telecom companies from lawsuits arising from the companies’ compliance with Administration requests—orders, really—to coöperate in patently illegal activity. The bill did retain that provision, and Obama voted not only for the bill but against the filibuster."
New Yorker: Obama's flip-flop flap - The New Yorker - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25673270/)

You are kidding, right? "Obama’s U-turn on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last week was not so trivial. He had promised to filibuster it if it retained the provision immunizing telecom companies from lawsuits arising from the companies’ compliance with Administration requests—orders, really—to coöperate in patently illegal activity. The bill did retain that provision, and Obama voted not only for the bill but against the filibuster."
Yes, he did flip-flop on FISA and it really pisses me off. But that isn't evidence of hypocrisy, unless you believe that he didn't REALLY change his mind, he just PRETENDED to change. Is that what you think happened?

i will say that i have a passion for politics that heats me up, but it's really out of my tremendous love for the field and a true desire to bring out the best of our nation. america would not be america without discourse, and i do believe that ideological debate is beautiful. propaganda is one of my greatest passions, so when i see it (and when i don't like how it's done), i get a little feisty. i hope you understand that what i wrote came from the feeling that he was going to get away with passing this story off as an innocent little lamb when that's not what it is. i'm allergic to those kinds of things. it's nothing personal, and i intend no hard feelings when the conversation is done!


Okay, based on how strongly you feel I can understand your initial reaction. Propaganda is rife on political forums... it's a distraction I usually try to get past. However, it was a pleasure to read your unpacking of the story for its honesty and clear insight. I'm very much looking forward to reading more of your ideas.

Okay, based on how strongly you feel I can understand your initial reaction. Propaganda is rife on political forums... it's a distraction I usually try to get past. However, it was a pleasure to read your unpacking of the story for its honesty and clear insight. I'm very much looking forward to reading more of your ideas.

Dearest fran, I greatly appreciate your aptitude for forgiveness. Your wisdom is tremendously valuable, and I'm always happy to read your posts. Thank you for understanding, and best wishes for a wonderful summer. I'll see you here again in September when our political fever is even hotter. Can you imagine what this forum is going to look like then? Oh boy. :)

Hi linnealand, I thoroughly appreciate your posts and thoughts. I am not a Simon, but a Simone but that is small stuff.

Quote, linnealand: " i hope you understand that what i wrote came from the feeling that he was going to get away with passing this story off as an innocent little lamb when that's not what it is"

I wanted to know what this story meant, so I posted it. I get confused by all the feistiness, as you put it. I am innocent, really don't know Jack about politics. Maybe I should continue to hide my head under a rock since those who do know are too busy putting others down to listen to a simple truth.

I didn't know what this meant, now I do. Thank You.

Hi linnealand, I thoroughly appreciate your posts and thoughts. I am not a Simon, but a Simone but that is small stuff.

Quote, linnealand: " i hope you understand that what i wrote came from the feeling that he was going to get away with passing this story off as an innocent little lamb when that's not what it is"

I wanted to know what this story meant, so I posted it. I get confused by all the feistiness, as you put it. I am innocent, really don't know Jack about politics. Maybe I should continue to hide my head under a rock since those who do know are too busy putting others down to listen to a simple truth.

I didn't know what this meant, now I do. Thank You.

Oh dear... deep sigh here...

It really isn't possible to know a lot about the person on the other side of the computer screen and sometimes I get terribly confused ~ which is why I prefer to play it safe in case someone gets unintentionally hurt and unnecessarily turns away from a discussion they want to have. It would be a great shame if that's how you really feel and I'm sorry it's like that. You don't have to hide under a rock though --- not ever.

There's a lot of truth in linnealand's critique of the story... although if you haven't come across her sort of style before, it would probably be a lot to absorb. It's fortunate you've had a chance to hear her point of view though and I'd suggest you take in what you can then let go of the rest. Whatever is worth keeping will stay with you.

Hear from you again then, Simone... and cheers for now :)

Simone, you have a lovely name. I would like to apologize for biting you. I didn't mean for it to actually hurt.

If you are sincere in what you said, meaning that you really did post the story with the sole intent of understanding it, then I respect your motivation. However, as needkarma pointed out, you have expressed support of this story's message in other posts.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/why-media-pushing-obama-so-hard-234057-7.html#post1166566
"My knee jerk? The media is a bunch of A-holes.
Obama is a possible Biblical prophesy.
The US government is busy giving our money to those who have not earned it."

So, what to think? One can either express complete ignorance of a subject, or he can argue his opinion, but it's hard to claim both. Combined with the bias of the story, I'm sure you can at the very least imagine why I would assume what I did. You say it's not true, so I'll accept it.

I would be happy to discuss the issues with you, if you are still up for it. But I would like to put forth a reminder: when it comes to political debate, don't take anything personally; one needs a set of "big ones"; and it's not uncommon for the temperature in the room to double. Please don't run away if you get struck - one risks losing much more than one would otherwise gain by finding holes in the other man's (or woman's) arguments and striking back with something better.

I'm not really sure what you meant by "simple truth," but if you're still willing to participate, I would be very happy to hear what you think.

Yes, he did flip-flop on FISA and it really pisses me off. But that isn't evidence of hypocrisy, unless you believe that he didn't REALLY change his mind, he just PRETENDED to change. Is that what you think happened?
What is 'in his mind' is The Question, right now, because he has a thin record insofar as his qualifications for president. If he is all-about changing his mind every month or so, how is a voter to know what to expect? In the topic of this post, the principle was laid out, clearly, and one 'analysis' was found to be superior to the other, which is what parables and allegories are all about.

In the topic of this post, the principle was laid out, clearly, and one 'analysis' was found to be superior to the other
Do you think the superior analysis is one that says government taxation and spending is nothing more than taking from the worthy and giving to the unworthy?

Do you think the superior analysis is one that says government taxation and spending is nothing more than taking from the worthy and giving to the unworthy?
Let's move away from this silliness: "once upon a time, there was an old man and a little girl. one day the old man found a sandwich. he knew that the little girl was very hungry, but because he was one who found the sandwich, he thought it would be wrong to give any of it to her. "this will teach her," he said, and he ate the sandwich himself. then the little girl died."
Here it is, in its most recent appearance: "In the Wall Street Journal, Holman Jenkins describes how much of the mortgage crisis remains hidden, despite its enormous scale, in places like California. In the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson describes how the government’s “affordable housing” fetish contributed to the mortgage meltdown, and worries (as I have) that the mortgage bailout, by rewarding irresponsible lenders and borrowers, will encourage irresponsible behavior that may lead to recurring financial crises in the future. (Regulatory pressure on banks to promote “affordable housing” and “diversity” helped spawn the mortgage crisis)." Housing Bailout | OpenMarket.org (http://www.openmarket.org/?s=housing+bailout)

Let's move away from this silliness
I asked you a straightforward question that was directly related to the topic of this thread. But if you think it's silliness, then by all means, move away.

I'm just interested to know how far those of you who think "government IS the problem" are willing to take it. Do you recognize ANY taxation and government spending as legitimate? Or are you a radical libertarian/anarchist?

I asked you a straightforward question that was directly related to the topic of this thread. But if you think it's silliness, then by all means, move away.

I'm just interested to know how far those of you who think "government IS the problem" are willing to take it. Do you recognize ANY taxation and government spending as legitimate? Or are you a radical libertarian/anarchist?
Please read post #33; it says it all, just as the initial post where the father asked his daughter to share her GPA with her friend or roommate who was a party-girl. Post #33 illustrates how many, many homeowners, who probably had no business purchasing a home in the first place, will be bailed-out by 'taxpayers'; we don't have the money for that, do we? Does the daughter in the story have an extra "A+" in her grade bank for her friend?
Furthermore, how about you telling me where this activity is provided for by the constitution?

I asked you a straightforward question that was directly related to the topic of this thread...I'm just interested to know how far those of you who think "government IS the problem" are willing to take it. Do you recognize ANY taxation and government spending as legitimate? Or are you a radical libertarian/anarchist?
OK, so here is another 'parable', but in this case, a campaign promise; so, who is the radical? "Obama's 'emergency' economic plan": "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an “Emergency Economic Plan” that would give families a stimulus check of $1,000 each, funded in part by what his presidential campaign calls “windfall profits from Big Oil.”
...

"The first part of Obama’s plan is an emergency energy rebate ($500 to individual workers, $1,000 to families) as soon as this fall.

“This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months,” Obama said. “Or, if you live in a state where it gets very cold in the winter, it will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills or even to pay down debt

"Separately, Obama’s plan includes a $50 billion stimulus package that his campaign claims would save more than 1 million jobs."
Now, that $50 billion doesn't belong to Obama or the Congress, does it? And you should easily recognize that the 'Democrat/Republican' label in the first parable actually is correct. Have fun with it.

George--

Your responses refer to two examples of government spending that you consider illegitimate. But my question was whether you believe there is ANY government taxation and spending that IS legitimate.

Furthermore, how about you telling me where this activity is provided for by the constitution?The Preamble lists five objectives that the framers had in mind:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
They surely must have believed that government taxation and spending in pursuit of these objectives was legitimate. Do you agree, or not?

George--

The Preamble lists five objectives that the framers had in mind:
They surely must have believed that government taxation and spending in pursuit of these objectives was legitimate. Do you agree, or not?
Would you agree that the preamble justifies the executive's use of FISA to listen to your cell phone calls?

Would you agree that the preamble justifies the executive's use of FISA to listen to your cell phone calls?The preamble, by itself, doesn't justify or forbid anything. I quoted it to make the point that the founders believed that there were legitimate functions that government should perform, and I asked whether you agreed with that. But I guess you aren't willing to answer my question.