Ammo For Sale

« « All things lead to Les Jones | Home | The public’s right to know and other myths » »

We’re not winning

No, not guns (we’re winning that), those other things.

I mean, us small government, individualist, small l libertarian, whatever buzzword you want to use, sorts. It’s true. You see, I want less .gov influence in, well, everything. Your average American is the exact opposite. They want Free Federal Moneytm for pork projects in their district, they want free health care, they want social security, they actually think the $600 rebate they’re getting in a couple months is a good thing, they want the .gov to write a big check and bail out their mortgage company, they want a puppy, they want to suckle at the .gov tit. It’s true. Deal with it. We’re the minority and that is that. Put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

That said, there seems to be a bit of a conundrum over that.

Tam has given up:

I think the big difference between our points of view is that you haven’t given up the fight, while I have. I just don’t see even a tiny plurality of human beings that give a crap about freedom. They want to be led. They want free stuff. They want to tell other people what to do. They’d rather watch American Idol than read a book. And they outnumber me by a thousand to one. And I’ve come to the dawning realization over the past years that I’m the abnormal one.

And McArdle notes:

The reason that those of us on the fringe–libertarians, Greens, socialist workers, or what have you–do not have more representation in government is not because there is some structural problem with the American political system, like a lack of IRV or minority party candidates. The reason we don’t have more representation is that most people just don’t agree with us.

Indeed.

KDT wants to fight it. I find his recent support for McCain at odds with that unless he just thinks it gets him four years to buy ammo.

Gullible Sebastian thinks that the key is numbers in the teens of percentages have libertarian tendencies. Well, they’ve always been there and don’t seem to have much sway because you can’t tap that resource without giving up something. He concludes with this cheery bit:

Liberty is a never ending battle. We will never win. Like the game Whack-a-Mole, it’s frustrating, and sometimes it seems like you’re doing all you can to just hold the line. But giving up is a sure way to lose at Whack-a-Mole, so to libertarians, I offer this: “Keep whacking!”

The issue then becomes that, at some point, with life getting in the way people don’t have time to whack any more. Or the energy. We’re losing. As Donald Sensing said:

I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go.

And that is the future unless Americans get off their collective ass and do something about it. But they won’t, American Idol is on. You see, a government that can do all of that stuff mentioned way up in the first paragraph is too big. And it will bring more of the nanny state. There are thousands of surveillance cameras and police armed with machine guns that look more like soldiers than Officer Friendly in our big cities. Governments are banning or trying to ban transfat, smoking, restaurants from serving fat people, and anything that is not made out of soft foam rubber. For your safety, of course. Police are routinely raiding the wrong houses, or raiding based on scant evidence (like your power usage for a particular month) and killing innocent people over drugs. Police routinely are caught beating the crap out of someone, and there are never adequate consequences for that. We lost Kelo. Your property is only yours until the .gov says they want it. They can tap your phones, read your email, and have all your financial information. And no one is doing anything about it except a few guys discussing it on the internet.

In my wallet, I have a business card. It has a gold emblem on it and across the top it says:

Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives

It came from an ATF agent. On the back, is written a phone number with the word Cell to indicate it’s the agents cell number. I keep that card in my wallet as a reminder that the federal government will knock on your door over shit you said on the internet.

Update: AC says buck-up little minority camper.

39 Responses to “We’re not winning”

  1. chris Says:

    I agree.

    Most citizens can tell you who the finalists on American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, and who got voted off the island last week on Survivor, but don’t know the names of their Senators, Congressman or Governor.

    As Kris Krisoferson wrote, “freedom’s just another word…”

  2. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    Most citizens can tell you who the finalists on American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, and who got voted off the island last week on Survivor, but don’t know the names of their Senators, Congressman or Governor.

    Chris, could they ever?

    The way I see it is that over the long term the trend is still very positive on the liberty scale. Sure it ebbs and flows. Hell, it wasn’t but about 40 years ago that segregation that was still legal. And today’s gripes are “Oh noes, we got cameras at Red lights”? Yep, you’re absolutely right, things are getting worse. /sarcasm

    Look, I’m not saying I like those things, I don’t. I’m not saying that things are all rosy either. But they’re a far cry from being the harbinger of the downfall of democracy and the age of tyranny.

  3. SayUncle Says:

    But they’re a far cry from being the harbinger of the downfall of democracy and the age of tyranny.

    Actually, democracy seems to be the culprit. People want free stuff and politicians line up at the public trough to shovel it to them.

    And I didn’t say tyranny. I said nanny. And, of course, there’s that whole big brother thing.

  4. Rob K Says:

    As Jefferson said, “…all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

    Our society today reminds me of ancient Roman, more concerned with the circus and government bread, paying others to play their games or music instead of playing themselves. The parallels are disturbing and obvious and all the idiots refuse to learn from the history of Rome, condemning us to repeat it.

  5. Tam Says:

    Look, I’m not saying I like those things, I don’t. I’m not saying that things are all rosy either. But they’re a far cry from being the harbinger of the downfall of democracy and the age of tyranny.

    It’s not tyranny I’m worried about. It’s the tinfoil hatters who think that Hillary wants to put you in an internment camp in North Dakota for the crime of loving Jesus or owning a gun.

    I’m worried about the fact that we’ve become just another European-style Social Democrat country, only with better gun laws and a bigger military.

  6. guy Says:

    1) Stop voting

    2) ??

    3) Liberty!!

    What’s step #2 then? I have a feeling “magic” isn’t going to cut it.

  7. trainer Says:

    I learned a long time ago in the service that not everybody can ‘not give up’. Those who cannot give up are a special group, fewer than you think…and not everyone thinks they are completely sane.

    Can 300 million Americans be led by the nose back to freedom by 5 million…I think yes.

    Ya gotta just keep banging away at it.

  8. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    It’s not tyranny I’m worried about. It’s the tinfoil hatters who think that Hillary wants to put you in an internment camp in North Dakota for the crime of loving Jesus or owning a gun.

    So you’re afraid of the anarchists posing as Libertarians are you?

    Anyway, as I’ve said, I’m glad that the cause of liberty has expanded enough that we are fighting over stuff that would have been considered minor just a few decades ago. It’s a hopeful sign. You just have to look at the longer trend than just the last 10 years.

    It may not be winning as fast as I would like but I just can’t see it as losing. Hell, who thought 20 or 30 years ago we’d even be discussing privatisation of SS as anything other than a Libertarian wet-dream. And while that battle hasn’t been won yet, talking about it is now mainstream.

  9. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    And I didn’t say tyranny. I said nanny.

    You pretty much can’t have one without the other for very long.

  10. Sebastian Says:

    Well, they’ve always been there and don’t seem to have much sway because you can’t tap that resource without giving up something.

    I’m not sure what you mean here.

  11. SayUncle Says:

    i mean the libertarians have always been here and their impact has been minimal. And, to woo them, they (libertarians) have to give up something.

  12. Kevin Baker Says:

    Damn, Uncle, you’re beginning to sound like me!

  13. Sebastian Says:

    Yeah, but to the extent that they are not willing to participate in the process as a political constituency, that’s a problem with libertarians and not a problem with their numbers. People who vote on the gun issue are probably not any larger a portion of the voting population than libertarians, yet gun right supporters have been successful, despite minority status, because we still have enough votes to effect election outcomes, and because there’s not much of a passion in this country for gun control.

    I don’t think it’s gullibility to suggest there might be a way out of this mess. There’s no fundamental reason why libertarian ideas can’t get traction. 10-20% is enough to affect election outcomes. I am realistic enough to know that libertarians are unlikely to suddenly get excited about the political process, and that we’ll continue to be marginal because of that.

  14. SayUncle Says:

    I don’t think gun rights supporters are a minority anymore.

    I’m not saying give up. Just being realistic about what we’re up against.

  15. Dave thA Says:

    Always best to be on the side that has the guns…

    When the time comes, those with the firepower reset the game.

    10% of the population is 30 million.

    In perspective, there are 2.4 policeman and less than 5 serving in the military per 1000 people in the US .

    We are just quibbling to save the other side a huge lesson.

    Quibbling IS peace.

  16. Sebastian Says:

    I should be clear on what I mean bout a gun rights supporter. I’m talking about people who will walk in the voting booth with gun rights being a top issue on their minds. If those folks were a majority, we wouldn’t be looking at a contest between McCain and Obama. To the extent that people are willing to give lip service to gun rights, I think we have come a long way on that. But if you talk to someone who’s not a gun person, and who says “Oh yeah, I think it’s an individual right” and then press him on the issue of what gun laws are acceptable, I do think a majority of Americans think the DC ban is unconstitutional, and that’s good, but start pressing for other specifics and suddenly you realize that their definition of “shall not be infringed” accepts an awful lot of infringement.

    You would have the same thing in other libertarian issues. For instance, I think most people would agree that the militaristic police raids and no knock warrants are a bad thing, if you present them with the right information. Turning that into reform in that area is harder, because you have to get people to vote on it. Most people like property rights too, Kelo decision aside, but you have to get people to vote on it.

    Of course, getting people mobilized on those issues isn’t going to be easy. Most people don’t envision that they’ll ever be victims of a no knock raid or eminent domain abuse. It’s far easier to mobilize people to defend their own interests, which is why there’s a fair political constituency for lower taxes and gun rights, than there is for curbing police abuse and eminent domain.

    I blame the media to a large degree. Instead of acting as a watchdog of government, the modern media culture has become its lapdog. There just aren’t enough journalists out there educating the public on these issues to make a real difference. That’s where blogs I think have an opportunity to shine.

  17. DirtCrashr Says:

    Is Libertarian an identity that fits into Identity-Politics, or is that a different pair of 5.11 big-boy pants? 🙂 Can we unlock the door that way?
    Here in CA we are all minorities in a One Party State made-over by Identity Politics and gerrymandered into perpetual servitude to a political class that chooses its voters, rather than the other way around.
    The square peg went into the round hole and the Governator came out a Democrat on the other side.

    I think California got like this not simply because Libertarians had minimal impact, and not just because the leave-me-alone ethic nullified their choices, and notwithstanding their unwillingness to compromise shifted things another direction — but also there was a concerted effort to lower the bar far below subsistence-level issues down to Universal Everything – making Liberty and self-reliance, and even Adulthood’s Big-Boy Pants look too uncomfortable and expensive, hard and unfair.

    One side was willing to give-away everything to seize the remainder – whether it actually had anything or not, whether it actually could or could not – to reap the reward of perpetual illusion and live in a haze of American Idol and fluffy rainbow clouds. They’re obviously dangerously insane, but the venality was pervasive and nothing was done to prevent it.

  18. Tam Says:

    guy,

    1) Stop voting

    2) ??

    3) Liberty!!

    What’s step #2 then?

    That’s why I said I’ve given up on seeing #3; because only a minority of people seem to be interested in the topic.

    Yu-Ain Gonnano

    Hell, who thought 20 or 30 years ago we’d even be discussing privatisation of SS as anything other than a Libertarian wet-dream.

    We’re talking about privatizing Social Security, yes, but we’re also talking about public health care. We’re talking about national CCW reciprocity, but we’re also talking about National ID Cards. Every step forward is accompanied by a retrograde shuffle.

  19. Hartley Says:

    Hmmm,

    You & I may like the thought of “Liberty!”, but to many people, it sounds edgy, risky, and , well, DANGEROUS. To function in a truly liberated world takes a certain amount of skill, knowledge and courage – and we all know how well THOSE are spread around..

  20. Sebastian Says:

    You & I may like the thought of “Liberty!”, but to many people, it sounds edgy, risky, and , well, DANGEROUS. To function in a truly liberated world takes a certain amount of skill, knowledge and courage – and we all know how well THOSE are spread around..

    Depends on how you frame it to voters. It’s very hard to get people to swallow an entire philosophy, which is why libertarianism goes nowhere, because they are selling a philosophy, and not issues. A lot of libertarians are going to argue that selling philosophy is how it should be, and that’s exactly why the movement goes nowhere. You have to sell the philosophy to the public one issue at a time.

  21. tgirsch Says:

    Kevin:
    Damn, Uncle, you’re beginning to sound like me!

    Nah, the post was about 2,000 words too short to sound like you. 😉

    Uncle:

    The problem here is kind of what you say it is: people really don’t want small government. They often say they want it in the abstract, but when you get down to the details of what that means, they don’t like it at all. Sure, shrink the size of government, but don’t take away my program.

    Where I object is with the conclusion that this means they don’t like freedom. The fact that most people want a safety net of some sort doesn’t mean that they want to be told what to do, when to do it, where to do it, etc.

    At the end of the day, I’m a pragmatist. Sometimes it makes sense to collectivize things that everyone needs (and that the market doesn’t provide on its own) so that everyone has access. Transportation, education, and yes, even health care, are all examples of this.

    Whether they realize it or not, what libertarians are arguing for is the law of the jungle, and very few reasonable people actually want that.

  22. tgirsch Says:

    Sebastian:
    For instance, I think most people would agree that the militaristic police raids and no knock warrants are a bad thing, if you present them with the right information. Turning that into reform in that area is harder, because you have to get people to vote on it.

    There’s more to it than that, though. Because when you provide them with the good information, the other (pro-law-enforcement) side will present them with scare tactics, talking about how prohibitions on these behaviors will undermine the ability of law enforcement to “protect you” from “the bad guys.” The current debate over the FISA bill is a perfect example of this.

    Instead of acting as a watchdog of government, the modern media culture has become its lapdog.

    You and I don’t agree on much in this world, but on that topic, Amen, brother!

  23. Sebastian Says:

    Everyone uses gasoline. Hard to function without it for some people. Is that a resource that make sense to collectivize? As a pragmatic libertarian, I’m not opposed to there being some safety net, but having the government take over 7% of the US economy doesn’t strike me as safety net so much as not so soft socialism.

  24. DirtCrashr Says:

    Some people (portrayed as VICTIMS) were on TV the other night complaining how their House was now worth only $230K and their loan was for a $250K house – and wanted a bail-out. WTF??
    The guy’s job didn’t change, the monthly payment didn’t change, the sky was still blue – but they thought it wasn’t “fair” or something. WTF happens when you buy a freakin’ car? Unless you pay cash, at some point you’re upside-down on the Loan – and nobody says “Ok, we’ll re-fi you, fer-sure…” Whatever happened to stick-to-ittiveness? Noooo, we want the fluffy chocolate bunny NOW dammit!

  25. KCSteve Says:

    The missing Step 2?

    It’s “Something really bad happens”

    ‘We’ are the type who’re prepared to survive ‘something bad’. It’s the old question: If you have a population of 100,000 of which 1,000 are Survivors and a catastrophe kills 90% of the population, how many Survivors will you have left? Answer: Approximately 1,000 – they’re Survivors, after all.

    To pick a recent possibility, assume a bad flu pandemic – something as virulent as 1918 but with modern trasnport spreading it. Some of ‘us’ would survive such a pandemic because we’re set up for bugging out (and thus would avoid catching it), but most of us would have only a slightly higher survival rate for the flu than the general population (I figure we’d do slightly better because we’d probably do a bit better at avoiding it). But it’s not the flu that would take out the most people – it’s the social collapse something like that would cause. And that is something we’re better equipped for.

    Barring the ‘something really bad’ we can only hope for a gradual swing of the pendulumn. Hard to get with all the shoving it’s getting in the other direction but no reason to stop pushing.

  26. Sebastian Says:

    By the time they realized the fly was a pandemic, it’s quite probably already too late.

  27. Sebastian Says:

    In all likelihood, the best way to survive a pandemic is just to stay in your house and not accept visitors. No real need to bug out. You can’t catch flu from someone you’re not in immediate contact with.

  28. Kevin Baker Says:

    Sebastian wrote:

    I blame the media to a large degree. Instead of acting as a watchdog of government, the modern media culture has become its lapdog.

    No, no! Not government’s lapdog, but the clergy in the Church of State.

  29. staghounds Says:

    That’s silly. “Something bad” is by definition BAD. And just waiting for it might take a looong time. Some pretty bad things have happened to France and Germany and Poland in the last 75 years, and there han’t been any revolutionary or survivalist upsurge. They remain pretty free societies. And pretty socialist too. The two are not mutually exclusive, because neither condition or state is absolute.

    People are always asking Lenin’s question, “What is to be done?”

    The fight for liberty is never over. Nor is the fight for tyranny. Or for the nanny state. (Are the two combined the tranny state?)

    The whole point of the study of political history is understanding that the tension between them is always there. One woman’s liberty is another’s predation, one man’s reasonable governmental function is another’s socialist tyranny.

    Sure it’s possible that the last three centuries of Anglo-American liberty are drawing to a close, but the fight isn’t over. Withdrawing to a remote mountain cabin and fantasies of revolt are impractical and antisocial.

    I agree that we have this government because we as a culture chose it. Just as we choose American Idol over C-Span or the History Channel. We as a culture can change it every two years. We thought we did in 1980 and 1994, but were fooled. Stay engaged, work for candidates you like, educate others, be a good example. Nobody is going to be exactly what you want, accept that. I can see tremendous differences between President McCain, President H. Clinton, and President Obama.

    We still live in a free society. We might define freedom differently, but the important ones remain. Build on them. Maybe- I doubt it, but maybe- “free” “health” “care” is the Verdun that the Socialists won’t quiiiist be able to take. Surrender insures they do.

    The MADD and the Swift Boat Veterans should inspire us all. You might disagree with their aims, but both engaged and won, coming from nothing.

  30. Rob Says:

    Good post, with some good comments.

    Noooo, we want the fluffy chocolate bunny NOW dammit!

    This creates a funny mental image 🙂

  31. tgirsch Says:

    Sebastian:
    Everyone uses gasoline. Hard to function without it for some people. Is that a resource that make sense to collectivize?

    Re-read what I wrote:

    Sometimes it makes sense to collectivize things that everyone needs (and that the market doesn’t provide on its own) so that everyone has access.

    Gasoline is inexpensive enough, even at upwards of $3/gallon, that virtually anyone can afford it. The same can not be said for, say, health care. Apart from that, gasoline is a particularly poor example, because the government actually spends a whole lot of money ensuring both an abundant supply of gasoline and a relatively low price for it. Very few of our interventions in the Middle East over the years would have gone on were it not for concerns about oil in the region. Those interventions prove quite expensive.

  32. ColtCCO Says:

    I have one of those cards in my wallet, too, though for me it’s a reminder that you can be put out of business, and even jailed on felony charges if your part time help lets a customer abbreviate the word ‘yes’ enough times. This post makes me realize that my worst pessimism about ‘things’ is not just negativism, but the Way Things Are. We’re outnumbered, and unrepresented, and losing on all fronts, because freedom is more work than bread and circuses.

    Been nice knowin’ ya, Grandest Experiment.

    ColtCCO

  33. Sebastian Says:

    The market can’t provide health care? I don’t seem to have any problem getting it without help from the government. I do feel for people who don’t have it, want it, but can’t afford it, but I’d prefer to keep the discussion focused on that rather than creating a new universal program that’s going to bankrupt the country over the long term. In a government run health system, the government will be forced to ration health care. That’s the only way it’s not going to cost a fortune.

  34. # 9 Says:

    I’m worried about the fact that we’ve become just another European-style Social Democrat country, only with better gun laws and a bigger military.

    Collectivism isn’t the answer. Even France is turning back to a more conservative position. Now is not the time to give up. It has taken 40 years to screw this country up. It will take some time to right the ship.

    The cause is right and the cause is just. Don’t give up on the Republic. Or you will live in a social democracy.

  35. Billy Beck Says:

    Yu-Ain Gonnano: “So you’re afraid of the anarchists posing as Libertarians are you?”

    Hey. I’m an anarchist and I don’t think that “that Hillary wants to put you in an internment camp in North Dakota for the crime of loving Jesus or owning a gun”.

    Is it that you don’t know what you’re talking about?

  36. existingthing Says:

    You can’t stop the pendulum from swinging. It will swing conservative/libertarian just as it’ll swing socialist/liberal. By this next election it must (please god) be reaching the zenith of its liberal swing. I think we can agree that majority of the population WANTS socialism, but that’s just because they’ve only heard one side of the story. The best friend of libertarianism must be the experience of socialism, because it’ll shatter all those rose (or red) colored glasses that these theoretical socialists are wearing. When the kid insists on touching the stove, despite your repeated warnings, you just have to let him touch it. Nothing will drive home our message more than a liberal’s sick kid sitting in the waiting room for 8 hours, or being told the wait for an MRI is 6 months. Or the inevitable tax pinch that will fall upon the middle class (when the so-called rich readjust to avoid new tax hikes); not being able to fill the tank with gas, or buy milk for the kids’ cereal drives the point home like a brick to the back of the head. Reality teaches the harshest lessons, and these lessons will be harsh.

    As for the ever-absent libertarian minority, I’m sure they’ve convinced themselves (incorrectly) that if they leave the government alone, it’ll leave them alone. So they’ve been toiling away at their jobs, saving for rainy days, buying ammo, and pausing only momentarily whenever they pass a newspaper headline blaming mortgage lenders for the mortgages people accept. It’s tempting to count these folks out, but as previously noted, these folks are the ones with the guns, and libertarians are nothing if not proud. I don’t know what will set off these ambivalent libertarians, but if the government is allowed to continue its current path, it will happen.

    I think we can hold the line until the end of the next president’s first term, be he/she gun grabber(D), gun grabber(D), or gun grabber(R). It seems very likely that if the D’s make it into the white house with no R majority to challenge them, things will start happening pretty quickly. I think the worst thing libertarians could do during the next unpleasantness is stand up and become a target when the people are looking to blame the government, and the government is looking for a scapegoat.

  37. CitizenLiberty Says:

    Everyone is pretty-much on track with my perspective: Americans want liberty only in the abstract because to really have it means personal responsibility becomes important. Just remember, democracy (mob rule) is the last step toward authoritarian government.

    Despite personal integrity, historical record of Constitutional support, and consistent intellectual development on fiscal and monetary policy, the only candidate offering liberty to Americans, Dr. Ron Paul, can only pull in 5-10% of the vote. Perhaps it’s his principled stand on the Constitutional method of declaring war or his desire to close the pig trough in DC, I can’t say, that ‘conservatives’ had no interest in his candidacy.

    Even though his stand on gun rights, ownership and carry, should have carried every gun owner in America, gun owners–too–fear liberty. As Dr. Paul states:

    “I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

    “I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

    * H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
    * H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
    * H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
    * H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

    “In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

    “I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

    “You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.”

    Too bad Republicans don’t care either. So yeah, giving up hope seems like the only option if you’re a Republican who favors civil rights, rule of law, and fiscal responsibility.

  38. Xrlq Says:

    CL: your personal lord and savior forgot to mention that he also opposed the federal legislation that ended politically motivated lawsuits aimed at bankrupting the gun industry. Between that and McCain’s minor imperfections on the gun issue (he has major imperfections on other issues, but so does Paul), I’d call it a wash.

  39. Nick Says:

    existingthing:
    “You can’t stop the pendulum from swinging.” But each major new government program starts the pendulum on a new point, one further to the left, one further in debt, one further down the road to serfdom. “Holding the line” has never done more than establishing this new point. We all know that no government program is ever abolished. No government program ever gets less funding. While it may be nice to think that liberals will burn their hands on the stove of univeresal healthcare when their kids have to wait 4 months on a waiting list or when they have to wait 6 months for an MRI. But face it, it won’t happen that way, so long as programs like universal healthcare are “for the starving children.” There is no end to it and no swing of the pendulum will do any good when the pendulum starts its new course. The government must be beaten back. If not, the pendulum will keep swinging left to right, but under a new context where the right of today is not even on the same clock as the right of yesterday.

Used three kinds of generics. I liked the Levitra Pills more, although the others acted quite well. Perhaps it all depends on the characteristics of each organism.