Don't be silly short round. Red and I are good. At least he has some experience that has factored into what he believe or chooses not to see. You on the other hand have absoultely NO idea what the hell you are talking about. Absolutely NO idea why you hate the things you claim to hate other than the fact that Reagan didn't like stoners. Its's all good. You will grow up some day.
"Remember that every government service, every offer of government - financed security, is paid for in the loss of personal freedom... In the days to come, whenever a voice is raised telling you to let the government do it, analyze very carefully to see whether the suggested service is worth the personal freedom which you must forgo in return for such service. " — Ronald Reagan liberals either believe 1) goverment knows how to raise your family and live your life better than you do 2) people are too stupid to live their lives without an elite goverment bureaucrat to parent them 3) wants to take control of the masses by making them dependent on goverment to the point where they are incapable of survival without a goverment master either way every time a population has been dependant on goverment the goverment has turned into a totalitarian police state. Look at the former Warsaw pack countries. Look at the former ussr. Look at china or Cuba or what's going on in vunezuela today. Every time it starts out as the worker or the surf or the peasant is being abused by the corporation or the landowner or the lord. See the similarities. First you disarm the population. Then you demonize a group that you want to exploit. Then you create an emergency so you can take power legally with popular support. Then you subjectize the population and control the unarmed public by use of force. Don't say it couldn't happen here. It happened in many countries over the centuries. Some in the unions were talking about bringing down the stockmarket and banking system just recently. Think about it.
The law says that it won't. That was a major point of contention. It is for US citizens. This is untrue. Homeless bums do not get government checks. Modern welfare is not available to people without a disability or dependent children and then they only get it for 3 years, max. Please do not confuse the health care law with other social programs like welfare, public housing, etc. Welfare has already been reformed and public housing is overdue. The poor people (mostly children) that will get subsidized insurance are already getting free healthcare. This system keeps working people who are willing to pay from being dropped or from being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. You are fortunate that you have a good job with good insurance. Apparently good enough that your son is not eligible for government assistance. But what if you lost that job in a downsizing? Say your new job didn't offer insurance or refused to cover your son because of a pre-existing condition. The new law would allow you to get the coverage that you need. Under the old system, you would have to be poor to get the government assistance. In the new system, you cannot be denied insurance. If you are working and have the ability to pay, then you pay. If you are unemployed or working in a minimum wage job, your insurance would be subsidized. If you were a poor dependent child, your coverage would be free.
Tell me . . . what personal freedoms do we give up because we have national parks, a post office, interstate highways, a judicial system, a police force, a military . . . I could go on and on. I eagerly await your response. Come on, R. You are smart enough to recognize BS propaganda when you see it. If you seriously believe these silly-ass charges, then I give up on you. They are absurd exaggerrations and you can't find me a single "liberal" who has claimed this. I can show you Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck who have said this and they are liars. If you are seriously comparing the unparalleled democracy of the United States of America, which has existed over 200 years without turning into a totalitarian police state, to the USSR, China, or Cuba, you have lost touch with reality, sir. Why have you lost your confidence in America? Do I need to point out that those countries all started out as totalitarian police states and communist economies? The ultra-right wing conservatives in this country have taken their anti-government rhetoric to the point of anarchy. Is anarchy what you are promoting instead of the well-established and respected government of the USA?
Come on red. Everyone knows your brilliant. Think about what's happening. Goverment control into ever aspect of life. It wasn't meant to be like this. Like I said earlier they're telling people in NYC how much salt they can eat. What would George Washington have said if the goverment tried to tell him something like that. In California they banned a freaking happymeal. So now goverment tells you what to feed your kid. I have heard reports on laws saying you can't smoke a cigarette in your own house. It goes on and on. When is the goverment in your business too much? This is what our founders said about what our goverment can become: The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson Third President of the United States "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. " Noah Webster American Lexicographer "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke British Statesman, 1784 "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin American Statesman this is what the first progressive president and a liberal hero had to say. From president Wilson : “No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle,” wrote Wilson, attacking the very individual rights that have made America great. He rejected the principles of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” that are the foundation of American government: “Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand….” wrote Wilson in The State. No fan of democracy or constitutional government, he wrote the following in Constitutional Government in the United States: “The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit….” Sounds like a devotee of the imperial presidency. There is an example of the father of progressive thought in America and his disregard to the constitution that is still alive today in progressive liberal thought.
Why do you keep saying that? I'm opinionated and a pretty fair country debater. That and $1.25 will get me a cup of coffee at Circle K. Hoss, you are just about the most paranoid individual I know. That sweeping statement is unsupportable. This country has more individual freedoms than any other on the planet. Think about that. There is no more government "intrusion" into our lives than there has ever been. To have no government impact on our lives is to have no government at all. I ask you again . . . are you an anarchist? No, they are not. You exaggerate and mislead way too much. One strange NY legislator has introduced a bill that would prohibit restaurants from using salt in cooking, allowing customers to choose how much table salt thay wanted to use. It doesn't have a hope in hell of passing. A diet zealot is just trying to make a point. But you have inflated it into "NYC is telling people how much salt they can eat", which is simply untrue. Actually, they only banned the toys in happy meals. It's California and it reflects California values. I thought conservatives wanted the states to be able to conduct business their own way? They sure as hell won't ban them in Texas or anywhere else. Again, the government has done no such thing. The state of California has told McDonalds that rewarding young children with prizes for unhealthy food is improper marketing. Then please share them. I've heard nothing of the sort. When is it too little? I think our government is the best and most balanced on the planet. So do most Americans. Is there some other country that you prefer? Some place where they do it better? Don't you recognize that California has the freedom to be trivial in this country? You'll have to do better than that. Woodrow Wilson is not the father of liberal though in America and he did not disregard the Constitution. I honestly think YOU disregard the Constitution. "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -- Sir Winston Churchill
http://www.google.com/m/url?client=...jAJOAo&usg=AFQjCNEP1zqUQq0GMAbS3hyD_svPE8vwGA The Progressive Assault on the American Constitution By Ronald J. Pestritto, PH.D. * quotes from this : The Progressive conception of government, on the other hand, was quite the opposite; Progressives had an “evolving” or a “living” notion of government (yes, we get the term “living Constitution from the Progressives), and thus wanted government to take on whatever role and scope the times demanded. *The Progressives reasoned that people of the founding era may have wanted a limited government, given their particular experience with King George III, but they argued that people of their own time wanted a much more activist government and that we should adjust accordingly. * * Quite simply, the Progressives detested the bedrock principles of American government. *They detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government. *They detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult. *“Progressivism” was, for them all about progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders. * The disdain for the founders intent for our federal goverment to be limited in scope is the greatest threat of progressive thought. The founding fathers wanted the federal goverment to be limited in it's power over the American people. They made it a point to insure that the normal citizen would be able to remain armed to protect freedom from a goverment turned tyrannical. The federal goverment was never meant to have an all incompassing power over the American people. Nor was it meant to be a nanny state where millions of people depend on it for their very survivial. This goverment is too big and too powerful now and progressives want to grow it and it's power over the American people to levels that would have alarmed the founding fathers. The greatest threat to America isn't china or terrorist. The greatest threat to America is progressives and their socialist agenda. Just as the seiu union leader exposed earlier this month scheming on how to crash the stockmarket. Unless the goverment and it's progressive cancer can be kept in check America as we know it will not exist as a free market capitalist democracy in twenty years for our kids to live in prosperity and freedom.
So, you declined to respond to any of my points and instead offer some other guy's opinions? Sorry, I won't debate with an article. But I begin to understand your misconceptions if this statement above is an example of what you read and believe. I've asked you twice if you were an anarchist. That statement sure sounds like it. I've asked you twice if things are so bad in America, why you are still here? What right-wing utopia exists in the world?
