TankBuster

My "separation" clause is a bit of a stretch. Anti trust laws and some environmental laws are legitimate if they protect the rights of the individual. Sure, they impact the economy but in a minimal way. Requiring banks to lend to those who can't afford it? No. Bank bailouts? No. Keynesian stimulus? No. Welfare? No. Social Security? Hell no. What's "compassionate" about the floating of all this debt knowing that the yet unborn are going to have to deal with the consequences? Its the ultimate selfishness. Again, why must you have your morality forced on you? Why must you be forced to give charitably? Especially by the likes of say, William Jefferson, Teddy the lifeguard, and Karl Rove? You must be so proud. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

If everyone agrees on the limitations, then they must impose sanctions on those that disobey those agreements. That's called government. And of course, it takes money to do that, which implies taxes will be collected. Or you could choose to believe that everyone will stand up and take responsibility every time one person exceeds the boundaries, but I don't have that much faith in people. Running a society according to a vague moral code only gets you to a certain point, then it becomes apparent that those morals don't apply to everyone, and most people deviate from their own morals, anyway, when it's convenient for them. As far as "my definition" of anarchy, here's the very top of the page from Wikipedia: We agree. Read my earlier posts. Some government is necessary, but only to the extent necessary to protect individual liberty. Taxes are necessary, but only to that extent. Judicial system, military, yes. Welfare, endowment for the arts, money to protect the san francisco field mice, no. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Absolutely false. The "provide for" is no where to be found in that document. The writers understood that promoting the general welfare of the nation was best accomplished by not restricting the rights of the individual. Otherwise, why would they have not initiated the welfare state as we now have it? They could have easily written in the Bill of Rights that we all have the right to expect government to "provide for" us, but they didn't. There were beggars and legitimate needy around then, but they left charity up to the individual. Anti-Trust laws have their place, but should be very limited in scope. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Sure they can. I do. Take a look at the history of Hussein before the Gulf War, and his willingness to use WMDs against the Iranians and against the Kurds in his own country. After the war, he repeatedly kicked out UN inspectors, and had stated goals of obtaining nucular weapons. Having been caught by surprise in the 911 attack, the administration and congress probably felt the need to be on the offensive. Take a look at this video. I doubt all these people were duped into the false pretense you point to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8 Could we have waited longer to see what Saddam was up to? Sure. Should we have? Maybe. A dirty bomb in Times Square a year into that wait, and of course that decision would have been vilified. Who has the crystal ball? BTW your topic is interesting, and it is a course of instruction all soldiers get. There is a difference between killing a combatant and killing a civilian, and speaking from my own experience, every effort is made to limit civilian exposure. In the case of criminal killing or wonton negligence, those involved should be punished. If you haven't been there, don't diminish the experiences of those who make good decisions every day to protect the innocent. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

It absolutely does require violence to enforce socialism. Is large scale institutional violence any better than that of small groups or individuals with opposing views? The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Well, then color me anarchist, but your definition is flawed. Your definition of government is flawed as well. Most limitations on my liberty can be agreed upon without any form of government. Those of us without criminal minds understand that we can't rape, steal, etc. I can't let my cattle graze on your land without some compensation. When those things do occur, then its a legitimate function of government to bring remedy to the situation, because it is an encroachment on individual liberty and/or property rights. Why do you, Riddler, need government to impose income and property redistribution to avoid anarchy? The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Why does race have to enter into it at all? That's playing into the hands of the left. There are those of us who believe that government has no duty but to protect the rights of the individual, and there are those who want/need government involved in every aspect of their lives, or are at least OK with it because they believe it is more "compassionate." I suppose there is some room in the centre but not much. Skyrad is right in that the next civil war here will be fought for the same reason as the Revolutionary War. And Mike you're right. The silence is deafening. And it's MUCH more dangerous for these guys than some chick walking in and out of the front gate of the CIA every day. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

How can I miss my own point? Maybe I didn't communicate it well, but I surely know what it is. Ya see, there are sooooo many out there who think BHO is SUCH a great orator, leader, and saavy politician. My point was to illustrate that at least in this one instance, he was a buffoon. To intend on selling an efficient government program by pointing to one that is inefficient, laden with loss, floating the idea of cutting output to 5 or maybe 4 days, and has the benefit of laws restricting the competition - is political buffoonery at its finest. In his own words, "its the Post Office that's always having problems!" Believe me, I'm happy with his incompetence in this realm. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

You're joking, right? Every government on the planet trades individual liberty and societal benefit to various degrees, and most people are perfectly happy with that. The only alternative is 100% anarchy (with a lot of really well armed people). Are you an anarchist? No, I'm not joking. Just because "every nation on earth" trades individual freedom for "societal benefit" doesn't make it right. Anarchy is the state of lawlessness, no "government" at all. In my America, and that of the founding fathers, government and laws still exist, as they must, but with a very limited scope - to do only that necessary to secure the rights of individuals. They saw what European "societal benefit" had become and they wanted something different. But then government gets a little drunk on the power they can wield by use of force, and they sell further intrusions in your liberty by selling it as compassion. The masses buy it, many resist it. After a while, another revolution will ensue to once again restore individual liberty. I hope we/they adopt a constitution exactly like the one we have now with one addition - The Separation of Economy and State. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

You need to take a grade school civics and history course. Our nation was FOUNDED on the principle that individual liberty rose above all else. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, We've gotten so far from it, it's really sad. Anyhow, nations formed to carry out someone's will often end up in corruption and evil. The only goal a nation can legitimately have is to protect it's citizens from anything that separates them from their rights as free men, to conduct their individual lives as they see fit, and to strive for excellence in their own realm. Robin Hood was as vile as any storybook character ever created, and if you promote that type of government, you are a thief, just like he was. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Well, you're either FOR individual liberty, or you're not. There's not a whole lot of grey area. I have a right to be totally selfish or totally altruistic. It's for no one to decide but me. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Unfettered capitalism doesn't promote canine carnage. In fact, it is the absence of force among free men. I have a product or service you want, you buy it. Your choice to buy, mine to provide. You have a business that I can contribute to, I take employment. Your choice to provide the opportunity and conditions, mine to work. Both situations are mutually beneficial, and accentuate a positive, a reward for our behaviors. The only righteous function of any government is to protect the right to operate as free men. Period. Anything government does is by force, which is necessary to counter force against my rights, but should be used for no other reason. Government operates through the use of a negative, a threat of force or punishment. So, if you advocate the use of force to require me to contribute to your charities, you are nothing more than a thief, a looter. You just hire/elect people to do your bidding. To use your words, you elect dogs to eat my dog. And what interests me is that you are glad to hand over your money to people who have proven time and again they will waste it or steal it. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson. Tom Delay. The list is endless. How could you be so heartless? The fruit of my labor and intellect is going to be needed to give my children and grandchildren education and to pay for the health care they'll need. Someone may come to my church tomorrow with a need. They often do. Why do you send thugs to force me to pay it to your charities? The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

OK then we agree. Should they? Actually, if they had a government, whose only function was to protect the rights of the individual, then they would have better opportunity than we have today. Our government has gone way beyond its intended role, and restricts opportunity. Opportunity in education is a job for parents, not government. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Yeah. I know you better than that. I thought I'd scrolled all the way up but I buffooned it. So I fixed it. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Why would you want everyone to be equal? Or the same? What a boring, Orwellian world that would be. We should strive to make sure that everyone has equal access to the law, and equal rights, but not sameness. Pointing guns at people to attempt to equalize their situations is just plain evil. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

That's good Bill. I know you see the difference between free market competition and the "competition" subsidised by the federal government. You're not stupid. You're just being antagonistic. Big boy pants? Face my fears? I guess you need to resort to trying to piss someone off when your argument falls to the lows of the irony pointed out above. You go on promulgating the lies of the left. Thankfully, not many are listening now. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Already losing points there Billy boy. The proposal doesn't exist. Several do. Of which do you speak? Bullshit. A safety net already exists in the form of Medicaid. I agree with Tom in that several plans already exist if what we wanted to do was cover those with no options. Why not expand those? I'm not against choice, but I'm against this lie disguised as choice. The public option will crowd out the companies who have to make a profit in order to survive. (In spite of BHO's gaffe made in the original post) The feds just raise taxes. And if you believe the next lie that their option will have to be self sustaining, I'll point you to the history of any other entitlement program, like Social Securtiy for instance. Further, BHO and others, including most recently Barney Frank, have stated that the public option is the best way to pave the road to the single payer system. So why are YOU against choice, Bill? Nice twist, but no, I support free Americans operating within the free market to make decisions for and take responsibility for themselves. Expand options for the indigent, and leave the rest of us alone. No, you're right, no one is going to kill them. They lived full, long lives under the free market system, and they are both no longer with us. Yeah, Bill, freedom terrifies me. No, what terrifies me is giving an administration with a socialist agenda a foothold in an arena they have no constitutional charter to enter. Not to mention the cost and the fact that we're broke and can't do it. You're choosing to ignore Obama's stated advocacy of the single payer system, and his stated understanding of the steps required to get there. You're believing the lie. Thankfully, more don't than do, and this won't be passed. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Equally as much bullshit as the claim that "the messiah" was coined by the right. You didn't call bullshit on that. I doubt either of you can find the ablolute origin of the term as it relates to BHO. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Absolutely! Free is the operable word. The only other way to ration is at the barrel of a gun. I find that as reprehensible as you probably find my "non-compasionate" attitude. But I have more faith in the charity of my fellow Americans as individuals and collectively in churches and other organizations than I have in the forced "charity" of the federal government. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Nice Bill. I believe that if you don't let the free market ration health care, then it will have to be rationed by other means. I suppose they could have a lottery, or a mega computer, but most likely it will be managed by a government agency. Some will be denied care, others will get it. Some will get it much later than they need it, which in many cases will be the same as denying care. In any case, these bureaucrats will be making life or death decisions that they should never be involved in. Hence the term "death panel." It's not a lie. The lie is believing that best way to handle this is turning it over, in part or in full, to the feds. The best way to bring down costs is to allow competition across state lines and get serious tort reform accomplished. And since the media is watching our forum, congrats to Palin for kicking the shit out of the Harvard grad. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Figured as much. Yeah, I'm sure "the media" is attentively watching your every word! The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

So you'd rather it be run by an industry who's primary concern is which voting block should have the highest survival rate? The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Well you have to give the GOP credit for finally beginning to target the Obama voters. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

You still don't get the point. Who cares if he busts on the USPS. Its the fact that he's trying to sell this major government program for how EFFICIENT it will be, and in countering the competition argument, he emphasizes the INEFFICIENCY of another huge government program, which actually handcuffs it's competition. Is that not political bufoonery on the scale of Joe Biden? The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Get your facts straight Bill! The correct term is "death panel." Socialized medicine is what it is. Rationing care to the elderly results in the same thing. Most Americans don't want it. If the liberal clowns really wanted to cover more people they could have spent some of their spendulus on it, rather than the little field mice. In a speech to the AFL CIO - in his OWN WORDS he wants a government takeover, single payer system. In his OWN WORDS he stated that small steps were involved. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.