from the glacier

While reading some pro-Bush somewhat-pseudo-kind-of-quasi-'conservative' drivel on what might be better called "not-so-live slightly revolting", it occurred to me that there are several discrepancies in American policy. One revolter likes to point out that the founding fathers were not liberal elightenment guys. Sure, why not. I'll buy it. But if you want your conservative whatever, we should probably look at the founding fathers and thier complaints. Review, for example, theTownshend Acts. What again, was the point of the taxation that the colonists were so adamantly opposed to? Oh, military "for their own defense" . . . Hmm. . . you can actually read these acts and see how small the taxation really was. Income tax (of the modern variety) is actually quite larger than any of the taxes proposed on goods. Plus, sales taxes and hidden taxes and . . . I digress . . . But what does income tax really pay for? I know. Defense for our own good. [aside, the last link is a little slanted. But scroll down and read all of it, and they show their own bias - especially if you read the part about why the spending varies - in yellow] Thus, if our founding fathers could so object to these unfair levied taxes "for their own defense", why can't we? I guess I would say that being pro-Bush (i.e. - pro-war) is, well, kind of liberal and newfangled. It goes against the ideas of the founding fathers. Thus, I'm not sure how revolutionary one can be, when towing the party line. . . unless being liberal is revolutionary. . .
But lest we take all of this as hate speech, just remember, I don't know what I'm talking about, and never say anything seriously anyway. Plus, there's others who are in line for some good natured vitriol"....