Replies

Sorry, had to commute. The quick answer is that although I feel the spending and other things are undesirable, I do not see them as a threat to the republic. As much as I hate to admit it, our fine country has survived almost 100 years of creeping government growth. With that as a backdrop, I can't fall for the hyperbole about losing the republic. It would appear we just have different priorities. At this moment in history, I think foreign policy is far more important than any domestic issues (as long as Bush doesn't declare himself dictator or something like that). It would appear your priorities are the exact opposite. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that's where each of us is in our lives right now. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I have young children. I don't begrudge you your priorities, but mine are just as valid. Don't mean to sound like a moral relitavist, but life is complex.

The quick answer is that although I feel the spending and other things are undesirable, I do not see them as a threat to the republic.

It depends on how you define "survive". If, by "survive", you mean that our government oligarchy (at this point) remains intact and there is no civil war or foreign invasion to overthrow it, then sure, it survives. It does not, however, survive in the form the founders originally intended. It has been (seemingly) irrevocably changed. Our liberty, which is inextricably linked to the federal limits set forth in the Constitution, has surely not survived the legislative and judicial assault on it. Our God-given natural rights are now effectively up for popular democratic vote. That vote now ends up on the wrong side of our liberty as a matter of routine. We can say that the republic has survived in name and official designation only. Bush doesn't need to declare himself dictator in order to act like the dictator he effectively is, in some areas, at least.