Just think how expensive insurance will be when everybody HAS to buy it!!! They've got you right where they want you--over a barrel. And the price will only go up. Do you REALLY think that once it is enforced, all those nice, friendly insurance companies will be understanding and lower the price? Tell that to my son, who pays $400 a month in car insurance he HAS to have. I'm not advocating driving without insurance, but this does illustrate what happens, when a law is passed requiring you to buy something. It's called gouging.... (Or downright theft!) And they punish you, if you make a claim! They know you have to have it, so how are you going to protest what they are doing? You can't. You're stuck.

Don't you people realize that the more cumbersome our legal system gets, the more likely it is to collapse under it's own weight? If you have too many rules and laws (big government), they are impossible to enforce!

The United States is sinking in the mire of its own legal system already. Keep it up, and the mud is going to turn to quicksand...

I've been victimized by this joke of a legal system already. The (liberal) judge fell asleep in court. The opposing attorney wanted to throw me in jail over a T-shirt, and a jacket I replaced that was too small for my son (this was family court, believe it or not!). If you fight them in any way, they punish you like I don't know what! It's all a big money-making scheme for the lawyers. As for protecting the innocent? That is a HUGE joke. The less involved you get with ANY law or laws, the better. I am too much of a rebel to sit still and take it, so I got punished. (No I didn't go to jail, but it wasn't because they didn't try!) One thing my son learned when he was four, though, he told me, "You spell 'lawyer' like this: L-I-A-R."

Out of the mouths of babes....

>> egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities?...... common market paradigms

Nice, pleasant terms. Who wouldn't want to believe in the promise of such a wholesome, kumbaya society. The problem with phrases and descriptions such as those is that they are simply non-specific, vague and ambiguous at best. Nothing more. The problem with framing an argument or discussion about socialism is that for each person their own point of view defines it differently. You may see equality and freedom from injustice, while I may see unfair practices giving opportunity to 'who' someone is rather that 'what' someone does. Who wouldn't want an end to socio-economic distress and imbalance? But the reality is what it is... "... inequality of some kind will always be a characteristic of the human condition." _{W. J. Stankiewicz}

Simplified? Taking, by mandate, from those that do and giving to those that don't, and won't, will never GROW a strong, healthy, productive society; it will never stimulate the economy, education, health care or technological advances. In a mixed liberal/conservative/capitalist society where the poor and sick are cared for, where the middle class is allowed to make their own decisions and the successful and affluent are allowed to function as producers and economic catalysts is a society that can be healthy, potent and beneficial to everyone. The key, imo, is a centrist approach. There must needs, of course, be some redistribution of wealth to care for those who CANnot (not WILL not) care for themselves. Anything more and it then becomes the elite 'deciders' making decisions for 'the masses'. Forced (so-called equal) redistribution, forced or mandatory compliance in some dream of an egalitarian utopian society, will merely grease the skids and hasten the death of America.

No one wins when collectivism or excessive liberal socialism replaces individuality no matter how pleasantly it is explained or defined.

Ok--

One of my co-workers was stopped at a DUI checkpoint. He was told to exit his vehicle (which he then did, rolling up the windows and locking the door.) and then was told to stand at the curb and undergo the standard DUI testing-- even though he does not drink a drop of alcohol.

While one of the officers gave him the standard battery of tests, another officer attempted to open the vehicle to search it-- which set off the car alarm. The 2nd officer came up to where my co-worker was doing the tests and demanded the keys so that the vehicle could be searched.

My co-worker asked what the probable cause would be for such a search (while, bearing in mind that he's undergoing the battery of tests for DUI). In reply, the officer demanding the keys tasered the guy-- who had his arms outstretched and was clearly no danger to ANYONE.

While my friend was writhing on the ground in agony, the cop patted down his body and got the keys-- and searched his vehicle anyway.

The other cops were laughing about this-- one quipped 'you have the right to remain unconscious, you have the right to have the shit kicked out of you for talking back to me...'

Now as far as warrantless wiretapping actually preventing any attacks? That claim is bullshit, pure and simple.

The Bush administration admitted that they did not have ONE SINGLE bit of evidence uncovered by the wiretaps that wasn't also procured by other means.

The Constitution has set limits on government for a reason-- because governments throughout history have exceeded their boundaries and acted against their citizens.

Enough! Your BDS is showing! Are there people who abuse power in every single genre of human endeavor? Certainly! Ever hear the phrase, "ablsoute power courrpts"?

The liberals' excessive use of Alinsky's rule 2, going outside your area of expertise, continually demonstrates your weak position.

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

And your vapid use of rule 3 was predictable

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
ref http://raymondpronk.wordpress...

If you started talking from facts, then people might ACTUALLY listen to you.

Congressional Record: October 15, 2002 (Senate)
Page S10425-S10432

Mr. (Senator) KYL.

Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning business for
as long as I might consume to discuss some legislation Senator Schumer
(WHO? Oh, that's who! Chucky Schumer (D-NY). I thought you said Bush administration alone is responsible for FISA? silly of me) and I have introduced and to discuss my intention to seek to have that
legislation added to the conference of the intelligence authorization
bill which, hopefully, will come before this body for our deliberation
and acceptance by the end of this week--again, hopefully.

This legislation not only will reauthorize the intelligence community
activities that are funded by the Congress, but also, perhaps, will
include an agreement on an outside commission that will later be
established to look into the events prior to September 11.

So there are some important elements to this bill. One of the items I
would like to add to it also deals with the subject of terrorism, the
Schumer-Kyl bill--that I will describe in just a moment--which is a
very small provision in the so-called FISA law that would be
appropriately added in this conference as an additional way we can help
win the war on terror.

Let me begin by discussing just a little bit what this legislation is
and why it is necessary, and then I will discuss a little bit further
how we would like to have it considered.

The bill number is S. 2568, called the Schumer-Kyl bill. It would add
three words to the FISA legislation under which we are now able to
gather information that is useful in conducting our war on terror.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, is a law which
provides a special way of gathering this evidence against terrorists,
and its origins are back in the 1970s. But it deals with a different
situation today in terrorism than it did back then.

...bear in mind one of the rationales for being able to accelerate
and short circuit the procedures here with a FISA warrant, as opposed
to a regular title III type warrant, is you are dealing with a foreign
country. You are not dealing with an American citizen. You are dealing
with a threat from without or an international terrorist organization.
So that is the theory."
http://www.fas.org/irp/congre...

Get a grip and quit sucking down that kool-aid!