A Small Peek at Liberal Indoctrination

[Shadow1]

Oh you got us with that on that one... except Lincoln has been dead for 145 years and Ross Barnett has been out of office since the late 60's.

...and the guys who signed The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution have been dead a lot longer than that, but they left us with a heritage that built the greatest nation the world has ever known. There's good and bad in our history - You don't get to ignore things just because they're inconvenient for you, so let me put that one in a little more perspective:

Writing his conclusion of the Majority Decision in the infamous Dred Scott Decision which legalized slavery, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney says: "They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

I've never heard anything so stupid in my life, but once you boil down all the arcane old language what Taney was saying is that keeping blacks as slaves was doing them a favor because they just weren't intelligent enough to make it in the white man's world... His statement is beyond stupid - downright idiotic.

Fast Forward to 2012, and you have high profile liberals like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton still advocating race based exceptions to everything from college admission standards to employment requirements... Effectively saying Taney was right.

Take that one step further and find the liberals saying we need to expand welfare and food stamps because there are so many people (regardless of race) who just can't make it in the modern world. Well, I say Bullshit. Sure people need a safety net, but they don't need more handouts, they need a hand-up. We need more opportunity coupled with incentive to get off the public dole.

[igi]

Yeah, I can play with your words too.

Let's throw this into the mix:

The Difference between Modern Liberalism and Conservatism:

Modern Liberalism is the belief that Government is owner and distributor of freedom and rights, while...

Conservatism is the belief that Government protects the rights and freedom man is born with.

These two ideals cannot co-exist; One must be defeated and subdued by the other.

The choice is simple: Being PROTECTED, or being OWNED

Shadow1

for that you get popcorn and soda extra large

[Darren King]

...

Take that one step further and find the liberals saying we need to expand welfare and food stamps because there are so many people (regardless of race) who just can't make it in the modern world. Well, I say Bullshit. Sure people need a safety net, but they don't need more handouts, they need a hand-up. We need more opportunity coupled with incentive to get off the public dole.

Yup the republicans give people a "hand up" by paying billions to banks and giving millionaires tax breaks. That really helped you I'll bet. Did you get your share? How many homeless people does that kind of politics help?

[Shadow1]

Yup the republicans give people a "hand up" by paying billions to banks and giving millionaires tax breaks. That really helped you I'll bet. Did you get your share? How many homeless people does that kind of politics help?

Um... excuse me, but who was pushing for all the bailouts??? ...and yes, the so called conservatives should have stopped all that mess - it surely hasn't helped the economy, and it's left us trillions deeper in debt. Both sides of the aisle have demonstrated they can't be trusted with their hand in my pocket.

Millionaires aren't exactly getting much of a tax break - they give up a much higher percentage of their income to the government than I do, and that's just as a percentage - in actual dollars they pay more taxes in a year than most of us will in our lifetime. Now you want to talk about a tax break, look at the people who don't pay any taxes in, but still get a refund come April 15th. I'm not complaining about the people who pay less taxes than I do, but rather I'm saying we ALL should be paying less taxes to the IRS - Federal government is WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY over it's constitutional boundaries, and most of the spending that's driving us into the ditch should be done at the state level according to our founding fathers. That's not to say we don't need / want / or can't have all the programs we have now (debatable), just that they need to be administered a little closer to home where it's easier to weed out the waste and fraud that only grows with each level of government that money has to pass through.

Last point: How many fewer homeless would there be if those people could find / could have kept their job? How many more jobs would there be if we didn't tax businesses to death, or make them afraid to hire people because of BS regulations and Obamacare?

[Darren King]

Um... excuse me, but who was pushing for all the bailouts??? ...
Millionaires aren't exactly getting much of a tax break - they give up a much higher percentage of their income to the government than I do, and that's just as a percentage - in actual dollars they pay more taxes in a year than most of us will in our lifetime. Now you want to talk about a tax break, look at the people who don't pay any taxes in, but still get a refund come April 15th. I'm not complaining about the people who pay less taxes than I do, but rather I'm saying we ALL should be paying less taxes to the IRS - Federal government is WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY over it's constitutional boundaries, and most of the spending that's driving us into the ditch should be done at the state level according to our founding fathers. That's not to say we don't need / want / or can't have all the programs we have now (debatable), just that they need to be administered a little closer to home where it's easier to weed out the waste and fraud that only grows with each level of government that money has to pass through.

Last point: How many fewer homeless would there be if those people could find / could have kept their job? How many more jobs would there be if we didn't tax businesses to death, or make them afraid to hire people because of BS regulations and Obamacare?

Well, I'm pretty sure it was Bush who paid $700,000,000 to the banks. And they didn't have to pay it back.
Obama paid money to the car industry and they did have to pay it back. Does that make sense?

Government coruption isn't party specific. Polititians are crooked, it goes with the territory unfortunitely. They have basically unlimited funds and no accountability.

Lastly, I can't understand your fear of health care. It isn't a punishment.

[Shadow1]

Well, I'm pretty sure it was Bush who paid $700,000,000 to the banks. And they didn't have to pay it back.
Obama paid money to the car industry and they did have to pay it back. Does that make sense?

...and who controlled both houses of congress, and put that turd together to begin with? Bush didn't have the balls to veto it, and that was just as stupid.

Government coruption isn't party specific. Polititians are crooked, it goes with the territory unfortunitely. They have basically unlimited funds and no accountability.

Agreed. I'm tired of them being able to reach into my wallet and spend my cash for me, or tell me how to spend it, which is why...

Lastly, I can't understand your fear of health care. It isn't a punishment.

Our health care system didn't need reform... our Health INSURANCE system did, and Obamacare isn't the way to do it. Even Obama's lackeys in the CBO told us it would be a fiscal disaster and cause rates to rise much faster than if we did nothing. So now we have rates rising faster than ever, Government bureaucrats determining what care we will and won't be able to get, $716 Billion pulled from an already unstable Medicare (that figure comes from both Forbes and The Wall Street Journal), and those "Death Panels" haven't gone away either... And if it's so good, why did congress exempt themselves from it... twice now.

You're right, Health Care is not a punishment. Health Insurance reform done right wouldn't be. But Obamacare IS.

[Darren King]

IS[/B].

Who is going to reform health insurance? The insurance companies? Not likely!
Sounds like you want the government to reform it. Kind of a contradiction. You don't want government meddling and yet you do? lol

[Ikon Princess]

Popcorn anybody? This is getting good. Wow

[Shadow1]

You don't want government meddling and yet you do? lol

Huge difference between government regulation and government control. It's some of the government regulations that have created the problem in the first place - Insurance companies can't compete across state lines = less competition = higher prices. Ridiculous reporting and billing requirements = more paperwork = more expensive.

Rather than simplifying the insurance system, the government has been complicating it - if I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say it was intentional: Load it up with crap to the point where it collapses under it's own weight, then you can replace it with anything you like. Politicians are going to replace it with something that allows them to keep their thumb on people... It's called the Cloward–Piven strategy. Google it.

So dump Obamacare, and insurance rates get cheaper immediately. Dump all the regulations that keeps competition low, and rates would continue to decline. Let the doctors make decisions about care, rather than make them waste time figuring how to work the system to get the care you need, and the overhead in the system gets smaller and more efficient. The Holy Grail is finding a way to stop insurance companies from spending more money trying to deny a claim than if they just paid it to begin with.

Yes there are regulations that need to be set and enforced, and there's a million rabbit trails you can run down, but government control is not a viable option.

[Darren King]

Huge difference between government regulation and government control. It's some of the government regulations that have created the problem in the first place - Insurance companies can't compete across state lines = less competition = higher prices. Ridiculous reporting and billing requirements = more paperwork = more expensive.


Yes there are regulations that need to be set and enforced, and there's a million rabbit trails you can run down, but government control is not a viable option.

We agree that politicians are crooked, well, insurance companies are even more crooked. Without regulations they would be even worse.

From your comment I can't figure out if government regulations are bad and control is good, or, if regulations are good and control is bad.