I've bought a couple of houses, and every time the lender had to show me the amortization rate of my loan. It's pretty crazy how much you pay in interest over the life of the loan, true. But if you're paying back 10x the loan amount, stop taking loans from the mob.

That's true, and I didn't mean to imply that the Declaration of Independence didn't have admiral ideals embedded in it. However, one is a legally binding document for the USA and the other is not. That is quite a large difference.

Job creation is something that human employers do, and that's the only source of jobs. There is no job fairy.

Neither do job creators just magically create these jobs. They see a market need and fill it. If they didn't, the next guy who tried the same thing and failed would have succeeded. That's the thing - job creators are necessary, but not any particular job creator*. The guys that say "raise my taxes and I'll take my job creator self overseas" are deluded by ego. There are a hundred guys right behind him happy to take over his market position and provide those exact same jobs. And one of them will succeed, because the market is still there.

*there is the occasional rare genius that creates his own market and is absolutely necessary. But not many.

That's the Declaration of Independence. Nothing to do with the Constitution.

I'll respect what they believe when I think it is moral and just and they demonstrate that they truly believe it through their actions. I don't care if they refrain from murder because of a self-consistent, logical moral framework based on the principle of minimizing harm, or if they refrain from murder because a sky fairy told them it is wrong. Either way, I'll respect their choice to refrain from murder and encourage them to continue doing so.

Limit what government can do so that it can't provide lavish benefits to some at the expense of others and that pretty much solves the problem.

So, pretty much get rid of government, then. As long as you allow taxation, government can provide exceptions to taxes that provide a huge benefit to those favored few. And without taxation, government can do nothing. Everything else is the same: any power to regulate includes the power to exempt from regulation, which provides a huge competitive advantage. Any power to enact laws includes the power to enact loopholes that exempt from those laws, etc.

No wars or economic disasters? Throw in a lack of blatant civil rights abuse and you might have just set a bar no administration has met since Harrison.

Maybe it's your genteel manner of polite debate that has prompted the downmods? Or your charming responses to those who do make a counter point?

Which is actually a somewhat scary conclusion. Are the only alternatives in our political system truly the insanity we see out of the Rs or the incompetence we see out of the Ds? Seems there ought to be some way to set up a system that encourages a sane, competent governing body, but I've yet to see it. The somewhat rare occasions we see competent sanity, it tends to boil down to an individual or group of individuals accomplishing DESPITE the system.

I think the key is to distinguish between Joe down the street, who is a registered Republican, and the folks in the legislature who are Republican. It is pretty clear that the Republican Party, as represented by it's leadership and politicians, is very much more insistent on adherence to the party line than Democrats (as defined by the same metric). Or at least more capable of enforcing such - I suspect Dems would if they could. You are right that it is foolish to make the same statement about the individuals who have no more affiliation with either party than their voter registration, which is most people in the country.

Of course there are ass-hats in both parties, and on every side of any issue. The main difference is that the GOP is a tightly controlled party that asserts firm party discipline. And the party line is major asshattery. The Democratic Party (DP?) is much more splintered. While there is probably just as much asshattery, it is on a more individual basis because the Democratic Party leadership doesn't have nearly as much influence over individual votes. So they can't enforce their preferred brand of asshattery as the party line.

It's none of your business what I think

And yet you and Mr. Card both are expressing your thoughts via a public forum. If you think it is none of my business what you think, keep those thoughts to yourself. As for what is and is not an acceptable boycott, I don't see that I (or anyone else) has any obligation to provide you (or anyone else) my business. Maybe I don't want to shop there b/c I don't like your opinions on the works of Dolph Lundgren. Why shouldn't I base my purchasing decisions on whatever criteria I find relevant? You are welcome to find my decisions frivolous or despicable, but unacceptable to me implies you feel that my decision should, you know, not be accepted. Maybe you simply meant disapproved of?

There is a huge difference between boycotting someone for their views and for their actions. Only the latter is acceptable

What's unacceptable about boycotting someone because of their views?

by 'better place' you actually meant 'more conducive to your pet politics.' Smarmy arrogance like this is why many have problems with the left.

Because the Right thinks the world would be a worse place if their political beliefs were implemented? I don't get how simply believing the world would be a better place if it ran more aligned with how I think it should run is indicative of smarmy arrogance. What kind of psycho wants to see the world run in a way that he thinks makes it worse? What a bizarre, logically devoid justification for disagreement.

social contract theory is neither voluntary nor something clearly negotitated and agreed upon by two parties

Whenever I hear this argument against the social contract, it brings to mind a teenager complaining about doing his chores saying "I didn't ASK to be born!"