>>>>>>>>>>Not just angry white people but angry middle and older aged white people. Look up the demographics and get back to me, OK?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And why, exactly, does that make their concerns or anger invalid? If one were to characterize a protest as "just a bunch of angry young black people" would that make their concerns not worth considering?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you have issues with their issues, fine, but you are arguing against *who* they are, not what they believe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am arguing against what they believe. It sure aren't the principles this country was founded on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This country was founded upon the notion of less government, less taxes, and free enterprise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Obama and the democrats are diametrically opposed to all three.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is a complete misunderstanding of our founding principles. Our founders put a lot of thought into what form of government the new country should have. There were differences between them, Jeffersonians vs. Haliltonians, but none of them believed we should just run around like hillbillies. They established a very strong government with three branches, federal powers and state powers, on and on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Again you evade the original premise. Reread: This country was founded upon the notion of less government, less taxes, and free enterprise, it has nothing to do with a strong federal government. It originally had to do with States Rights of Sovereignty (sp?) until the first of the progressives and libs usurped states rights and formed big government to take care of everyone. Quit reading your history books the way you want, read what's written...
>>>>
>>>>We definitely disagree about the origins of the U.S. If we were founded on the principle of less government why did the founders establish so much of it? They intended it.
>>>
>>>
>>>???? What history books and federalist papers and constitution and letters by our founding fathers did you read?
>>
>>Is the government also understaffed in your opinion? :o)
>
>Now there is a loaded question.
>
>If you want to disagree with me, please support your thoughts. It is my position that the founders in no way intended a limited government. The battle was over federal vs. state powers. They never would have taken the trouble to meet in Philadelphia if they wanted us to continue as a lawless society.

Your first sentence is so ironic that I won't even address it. As to the emphasized text (emphasis mine), are you changing your position now or did I miss something? I don't recall you specifying federal vs state powers in your earlier posts. That is limiting the powers of the federal government and you know it. It appears to me that your statement and your arguing is moving around so much that it's not use discussing it.