Do Conservatives want to take America backwards?
Mopeder
2012/04/08 14:33:59
|
|
|||||
|
68 votes
|
|
59% | ||
|
47 votes
|
|
41% | ||
Read More: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/SodaHead-Pro...
Furthermore, he's incorrect. When a government consists of a people who think they're entitled to govern because of their birth or position, then he is correct; government expands and liberty contracts -- for us running dog lackeys of the bourgeoisie.
If, however, we're a government that starts with "We The People" and goes from there then government will become manageable and responsible and liberty will increase.
When Reagan said "Government is the problem" he wasn't saying he wanted less of people like him in the government and more of you and me. He was saying he wanted LESS of you and me and more of him. Reagan didn't like the phrase "We The People" as enshrined in the Constitution.
Reagan isn't a saint. At all. He's the worst embodiment of totalitarianism this country has ever seen.
I agree that Reagan wasn't a saint, but he did articulate some ideas very well. He is FAR from the worst embodiment of totalitarianism this country has ever seen......that would be Barack Obama, who said that he would be "ready to rule from day one."
Greece is a much smaller nation, hence its collapse makes smaller waves, but any nation can collapse in the exact same way by pursuing the same failed policies, primarily the "everybody gets everything for free" policy. No nation is too mighty to be brought down by the redistributionist economic model, which Karl Marx defined so eloquently: "From each as he is able; to each according to his need." The problem with that positive-sounding platitude has been articulated by the late Dr. Adrian Rogers:
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What o...
I agree that Reagan wasn't a saint, but he did articulate some ideas very well. He is FAR from the worst embodiment of totalitarianism this country has ever seen......that would be Barack Obama, who said that he would be "ready to rule from day one."
Greece is a much smaller nation, hence its collapse makes smaller waves, but any nation can collapse in the exact same way by pursuing the same failed policies, primarily the "everybody gets everything for free" policy. No nation is too mighty to be brought down by the redistributionist economic model, which Karl Marx defined so eloquently: "From each as he is able; to each according to his need." The problem with that positive-sounding platitude has been articulated by the late Dr. Adrian Rogers:
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Of course Reagan articulated some ideas very well. He was an actor. He was a product of the Studio System. He took direction very well. When he was told to articulate a particular belief, he did so with all his soul. Exactly as one would expect an actor from the studio system to do.
Now consider if Maryland was a failing state in the union and threatening to take down the entire United States because it couldn't meet it's debt burden. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Well, that's where the country of Greece sits with respect to the European Union.
The balance of your post is right-wing Ayn Rand claptrap. Something to be accepted without explanation. I'm made of sterner stuff and require explanation.
Do so. No quoting from religious or political tracts without attribution.
Go for it.
Everyone knows what President Reagan stood for... His leadership confronted the totalitarian Soviet Union.
More people now are taking from the government than paying into the government. How can we stop this when they outnumber us?
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
― Adrian Rogers
It may well be that before long the Feds will start the war. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama declares martial law and orders the military to crush any opposition demonstrations, and that could be the beginning. I do know that if he isn't removed from office yesterday, we're in BIG trouble.
You're absolutely right about the second Amendment. And the fact we haven't been able to practice it fully is completely on purpose, the government does little things so people won't notice. We should be able to own any kind of weapon, automatic or otherwise, but government takes away little things like that and people don't notice or think that it's for our safety or whatever the excuse is.
It's time to take a balls in your hands approach and throw all these idiots out.
I suggest you begin listening to the conseratives that are out there and rethink
Had you developed you mind a bit more, you'd realize that it isn't sexism to say that "it's not OK" (Santorum) to have sex with anyone and everyone you feel like just because you have birth control. It's a moral view which applies equally to men and women. It isn't sexism to say that birth control should be something people have to pay for themselves any more than it is to say that cars should be something people have to pay for themselves. You want things? Work for them!
I am tired of people like you whining about racism and sexism whenever someone tries to restore fiscal sanity by taking away your "right" to take money from me which you did not earn with which to buy things you do not need. When will you whiners grow up and stop expecting everyone else to give you a free ride?
SO they ARE taking away "rights" .......Oh good, that's the first neocon response I have heard actually admit it. They are just walking back all the "rights" women have fought for in the last 60 years. Further eroding the ability to get those rights and denying legal methods to obtain those "rights".
Oh and if you think I'm taking your sentence out of context?
Life's a bitch, now you've met me.
Birth control isn't racist! Eugenics is, Genocide is. And it is only sexist because neocons have made it so by trying to destroy what is already in place.
When its women that suffer because of Frothymans opinions and some of the laws being presented by repubs, you bet your life its sexism. Paying for it is a different matter altogether, the facts are obviously too convoluted for you to grasp.So I only expect insults back.
Peace dood
I am not a NeoCon; I am a 1776-throwback. I put "right" in quotation marks because it is not a right at all. No one has the right to force someone else to pay for something just because they feel like they need it. Taking those freebies is forcing someone else to give you a portion of their life—the portion that they spent working for the money you took from them by using the government as an instrument of plunder.
I never implied that birth control was racist; I only mention it in passing as something that "liberal" whiners cry about for no better reason than that they have nothing better to say about a matter. No actual womens' rights are being "walked back," unless you're referring to the "right" to have sex with whomever whenever and then murder the offspring of such foolishness. Yes, it's true—some people think that's a bad thing.
"Life's a...." what did you just call yourself??!
Your ignorance is YOUR issue.
You may think its a bad thing, you dont have the right to force me to live by it.
"Reducing ability to get a legal medical procedure IS taking away rights of freedom and liberty." Really? So if I reduce someone's ability to take money from you to spend on themselves, I have infringed on their liberty? It would seem that I stuck up for your liberty!
Your money is a large part of your life. Unless you're a mooch, you trade your life for your money. If I have the right to your money, I have a right to a portion of your life. In essence, I have a right to make you work for me without compensation. I become a slaveholder! Is that your idea of liberty?
"Ability to get" is not a one-way street. It consists of access to services, which is excellent in this country, at least for the moment, and ability to purchase said services. If one cannot purchase those services, they should go without them until such a time as they can purchase them with their own resources. To do otherwise is to justify slavery.
The greater part of liberty is self-sufficiency. When you are dependent upon someone else for your living, you have no freedom, and no dignity.
Enough said "junior".
Much of what you said in that post and the previous discussion was meaningless. It was Democrat talking points that sound good to people who do no research or fact-checking. It does not hold up to any serious thought, just like nearly everything else that the Democrats say.
If you want to have a serious discussion on any topic, I welcome it. I'm not an intellectual lightweight, even if I am sometimes a little snarky.
I do find it interesting that Hitler used the classwarfare, and we saw his creation OWS blames jews for the financial problems created by Liberals.
Not saying Obama is a Hitler, Hitler had a mustache.