It's a waste of time to listen to The Pope.

If Rockefeller had won in 1964, then the Ford tax rates would be the current rates. After all, what politician would have supported cutting those tax rates?

Here's the real question:

Would the government be larger today if Rockefeller had won in 1964 and Reagan had never become president?

I think it would be.

It's way too large for me anyway. SMOD 2016

It doesn't matter to me who the Republicans nominate. I'm just here for an irrelevant discussion that for some reason interests me. I suppose I'm a fan of 1964. Regarding 1964, let's try to clarify different issues.

A. If Republicans would have nominated Rockefeller, then Rockefeller might have won.

B. If Rockefeller would have won, then today's federal government would be smaller than it is.

C. If Republicans had not nominated Goldwater, then Reagan would never have become president.

D. If Reagan had never become president, then today's federal government would be larger than it is.

I seriously doubt A, as people had sympathy for JFK and hate rich Republicans. I also seriously doubt B, as I've argued above. There's a good case for C, as Reagan's political fortunes largely began with his speech for Goldwater. There is also a good argument for D, simply looking at Reagan's tax cuts and the 1980-alternative (Bush) did when he was later president. You (Salvatore) seem to believe A and B, but do not believe C. If so, we understand our disagreement. We may agree on D.

Counterfactuals are fun to play with. I can easily imagine a scenario in which Rockefeller wins in 1964, the progressives gravitate towards the Republicans, and in 2012 the Democratic Party is the more conservative of the two major parties.

I see no -- absolutely no -- reason to believe Rockefeller's Great Society would be smaller than Johnson's. Look at Nixon's record. In terms of increasing the size and scope of government, I believe Rockefeller would have been worse than Nixon.

Like many of us, I've heard Rob Long's recent references to the 1964 election being the cause of today's problems. I enjoy listening to Rob Long. He's smart and funny. However, the root of today's problems is not the fact that the Republicans nominated Goldwater in 1964. The root of today's problems is the fact that the American people voted for an explicit counterrevolution with FDR. That counterrevolution has succeeded, with the support of the majority of Americans.

They -- the majority of Americans -- took a country based on beautiful ideas and threw it away. To put it in Chris Christie terms: I don't give a damn what happens to them now.

Without Goldwater, the choice would've been between the Rockefeller Great Society and the Johnson Great Society. There was no trade.

The real problem is that most Americans like big government. Most Americans, like most people, are afraid of liberty. Republicans already have a reasonably good strategy for winning elections. Talk about small government just enough to get the votes of the minority that want smaller government while at the same time increasing government when elected. That's the big tent: Voters who want to believe Republicans will shrink the government and voters who know Republicans will increase it.

The solution? I'm partial to the Ace of Spades solution: Sweet Meteor of Death 2016!

In all seriousness, I believe the American experiment in limited government and maximal individual liberty to be over. Looking back, I suppose it's been over for almost a century. I'm still in mourning, but getting ready to simply move on.

I agree with this.

The alternative to running Goldwater in 1964 was running Nelson Rockefeller. First, there are many reasons to believe Rockefeller would have lost to Johnson as well. Second, there are many reasons to believe the size and scope of the federal government would have also dramatically increased under a Rockefeller administration. Rockefeller was to the left of Nixon, and simply look at the expansion of government under Nixon.

I understand that many people think of a political party (e.g., Republican) as their "team" and they simply want their "team" to win. For those people, I recommend they push the Republican Party to nominate Hillary. Other people have philosophical positions and winning an election with a candidate opposed to those positions has no appeal. Note that those in the second camp point to Goldwater as a *success* story because Goldwater popularized certain ideas and 16 years later Reagan was elected.

This debate has been going on for over 50 years. It seems to me it's because the two sides simply have different goals.

Does anyone believe the IRS would be targetting Tea Party groups if Chris Christie were president?

I mean, anyone else besides me. Imagine: Secretary of the Treasury Mike Castle.

1. He has no problem with Obamacare.

2. He thinks concerns about creeping Sharia are "crap."

3. In a time of emergency, his natural response is to support rationing and price controls.

4. He helped Obama get reelected.

5. He doesn't think there are enough gun control laws.

I'm glad someone clarified who Oskar Lafontaine is and who he is not. Oskar's recent statement is being passed around, but ultimately he's a nobody. His party (which, yes, is the result of a merger with the *East German Communists*) gets around 20 percent of the vote in Saarland. It's hard to say how much of that is because it's Oskar's home territory and how much is because Saarland is filled with Communists.

I thought of Oskar when Thatcher died. When Oskar dies no one will celebrate and few will mourn. In the end, Oskar Lafontaine is a left-wing extremist who has, fortunately, made very little impact on Germany or the world.

Wait. There are still people using US Dollars? Scary.

Yes, Yes, and Yes. And the majority of Americans will be fine with it. The minority that won't be fine with it will do nothing but complain about it.

On a related note: I hate Pat Toomey. He is a disgusting, disgusting traitor. I'm ashamed to have voted for him. I never will again.

I suggest everyone lose their firearms in tragic boating accidents as soon as possible.

I believe that if the algorithm is altered, then it wouldn't be what's currently known as Bitcoin, but an alternative. The old Bitcoin with the old algorithm will exist as long as people are running the software. Hacking incidents have happened and in some cases it has caused a severe drop in the price. It appears that a company that has several online Bitcoin websites (Instawallet and Bitcoin Central) was hacked in the past few days. The story isn't clear yet and the websites have been offline for over two days. Interestingly, the price is still going up. None of what I'm saying is investment advice, needless to say (I hope). I'm just encouraging people to learn about Bitcoin. It -- or something like it -- *might* be the future of currency.

I think the most wonderful possibility would be that governments try to kill Bitcoin...and fail.

By the way, the price of a Bitcoin passed 100 Euros in the past few hours.