The left believes in government. The right believes in freedom.

[bripat9643]

Lastly, you people expect the government to be there? Well, without fema and your state sending in the national guard many more people would die in hurricanes.

Many more people would die in hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and earth quakes without the government digging you out of that hole!

Yeah, private individuals would never volunteer to help anyone, especially liberals.

 

[bripat9643]

Question: If the right believes in "freedom" why do you have to take a test and sign a pledge to get in the club?

Have you heard of the Reichswehreid -- it started off very secular, then was revised by Hitler to include religious references.

I swear by God this holy oath, that I want to offer unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the commander-in-chief of the Wehrmacht, and be prepared as a brave soldier to risk my life for this oath at any time.


King George also wanted us to sign pledge.

Most Oaths of Office are about upholding the law and the constitution. The Conservatives go a step further and sign a pledge with no limits or exceptions essentially searing to IGNORE one of their constitutional powers -- "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States".

So much for freedom to change your mind based on new information. They give that up at the box office.

What do Hitler or King George have to do with freedom?

 

[bripat9643]

Science has
1. Doubled life span
2. wiped out most of the deadly viruses and diseases
3. Gave us light and electricy...Warmth for us not to freeze.
4. The computer you're typing on.
5. The car you're driving down the street.
6. A understanding of our universe

Yeah let's defund science and let people keep dying of cancer. Maybe you do stand for freedom in some areas, but defunding science is just stupid.

Most of that was long before government ever spent a dime on science.

 

[bripat9643]

Has anyone noticed that the states that are bitching about "states rights" in regards to gay marriage were the same states bitching about "states rights" in regards to slavery?

You mean like California?

Yeah, we have Republicans in California, too. I should have clarified that it is Republicans who are bitching about "states rights" in regards to gay marriage just like it was Republicans, then called Democrats, who were bitching about "states rights" in regards to slavery. Either way, I'm talking about bigoted Confederate simpletons who think that two men getting married somewhere has any bearing on their lives.

Two men getting married does affect my life. It gives them access to all manner of government benefits, which means my taxes or the debt will increase as a result. Why should two **** buddies get government benefits that were intended to prevent mothers and children from becoming destitute?

[And here are some more of those "long lines" that don't exist:

Those lines don't look any longer than the one I had to stand in to vote. I was in line for well over an hour.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Funny part of it is satellites warn us of hurricanes. Most conservatives live within hurricane zones and without those satellites = 1950's warning levels!

Computer models wouldn't have nearly the data and we'd go back to the early 1990's.

Oh did I say you people are mostly within tornadoes alley. Too ******* bad as warning would be sliced big time without the noaa, nws and the radar they maintain.

Small government people just don't think things through.

Your belief that private firms wouldn't provide weather information if government wasn't providing it for free is charming.

They sure as hell couldn't maintain the infrastructure of the nws and the billion dollar satellites. It is worth a few dollars in taxes take allow everyone to have this warning.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unfortunately, there are many millions of Americans who will choose a free ride over freedom and the left has recognized this and exploited it for all it's worth.

I would disagree, based upon your use of the word "Americans".

Americans are those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America. As a result, they bear their responsibilities, earn their own way.

Socialists on the other hand, are relativists.

Relativism rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.

Therefore Socialists reject the principles that define truth and as a result are untrustworthy, unreliable and generally amoral.

They seek the 'easier' way.

Now because one cannot simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS.

There are Leftist US Citizens, but there's no real source of pride in that. As all it takes to make that claim, for the VAST MAJORITY of them, is to slide down a birth canal on US Soil.

Big deal.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Funny part of it is satellites warn us of hurricanes. Most conservatives live within hurricane zones and without those satellites = 1950's warning levels!

Computer models wouldn't have nearly the data and we'd go back to the early 1990's.

Oh did I say you people are mostly within tornadoes alley. Too ******* bad as warning would be sliced big time without the noaa, nws and the radar they maintain.

Small government people just don't think things through.

Your belief that private firms wouldn't provide weather information if government wasn't providing it for free is charming.

They sure as hell couldn't maintain the infrastructure of the nws and the billion dollar satellites. It is worth a few dollars in taxes take allow everyone to have this warning.

So, you're saying that there are no corporate satellite in space?

You can't be serious.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny part of it is satellites warn us of hurricanes. Most conservatives live within hurricane zones and without those satellites = 1950's warning levels!

Computer models wouldn't have nearly the data and we'd go back to the early 1990's.

Oh did I say you people are mostly within tornadoes alley. Too ******* bad as warning would be sliced big time without the noaa, nws and the radar they maintain.

Small government people just don't think things through.

Your belief that private firms wouldn't provide weather information if government wasn't providing it for free is charming.

They sure as hell couldn't maintain the infrastructure of the nws and the billion dollar satellites. It is worth a few dollars in taxes take allow everyone to have this warning.

Weather satellites don't cost a billion dollars. If private firms can put satellites in orbit to transmit television signals, they can put a satellite in orbit to gather weather information. I think plenty of farmers, airlines and other businesses would be more than willing to pay for weather information. Furthermore, private firms are in the process of developing launch vehicles that can put a payload in orbit for 1/10th of the cost of most government developed rockets.

 

[Londoner]

Yeah let's defund science and let people keep dying of cancer. Maybe you do stand for freedom in some areas, but defunding science is just stupid.

You should check out the book "Creating the Cold War University".

The book describes how our government partnered with the greatest universities in the nation in order to fund vital scientific advancements for our war against the Soviets. The government funded most of the research and development that created the technology that was later fed into the 80s consumer-electronics boom. The main areas of focus were satellite technology, communication technology, computer technology (i.e., every imaginable form of electronics technology), nautical technology and aerospace. And that's just the big things. The state sector also developed containerization (to allow our armed forces to move goods more efficiently) - and later seeded to private sector so they could ship their goods more efficiently. Obviously, you can imagine the technological sophistication that went into building the world's most advanced fighter jets at that time, and that's just a fraction the technology that was required to fight a global war where communication between periphery and center was vital. (And Republican voters don't know any of this)

The point is: some of the most profitable technology in the last 100 years was developed on the taxpayer's nickel, and then it was literally seeded to the private sector who, standing on the shoulders of government funding along with research-&-development, used these technologies to produce massive profits.

Today, corporations have created a lobbying empire in Washington DC in order to extract funding and technology from the government. The technology still mostly comes out of the Pentagon budget and what's left of the space program.

But the fact remains, it's hardly free enterprise when the state supplies the advanced industrial infrastructure along with massive investment subsidies and patent protections, and then the profiteers walk away with all the benefits (and then they use their profits to fund an anti-tax revolution so they don't have a reciprocal obligation to the host nation, which slowly crumbles as they parachute away with dynastic wealth).

We have raised a generation of Republicans who don't know how parasitic the market is on State supplied technology and funding. Profitable corporations like Boeing have received over a trillion dollars from the defense budget in the form of subsidies and technologies developed by the state sector.

The stuff isn't a secret. It's on the public record. The reason most people don't know it is because they get 100% of their information from pop media pundits and a whole universe of ridiculous blogs and slanted newspapers.

 

[Clementine]

Dude, is this shit really what you think? If all the problems these programs were created to mitigate were simply ignored by the government, would you call that responsible governance? Of course not. Any government has the responsibility to provide for the common good and see that hunger and disease are a least somewhat dealt with in some rational and compassionate manner. Anything less requires lots of cops, lots of prisons and lots of repression to keep the peace.

And yet the govt continues to fail at the seemingly most mundane tasks. How many years are we into our war on poverty?

Government gets more unreliable each year.

I got this in an email and thought it was interesting and accurate.

During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender
of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. produced 22 aircraft carriers,
8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203
submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter
aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training
aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars,
3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.
We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services,
invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy , won the battle for the
Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and
Europe, developed the atomic bomb and ultimately conquered Japan and
Germany .

It's worth noting, that during the almost exact amount of time, the
Obama administration couldn't build a functioning web site.

Liberals start with good intentions and when things get worse because of their ideas, they still continue to pat themselves on the back for their attempt at helping. They don't like tough solutions. It's not easy for people to get themselves out of poverty and the liberals act like no one should endure the slightest hardship as they improve their lives. Most successful people I know had rough starts and had the lean years where they struggled before becoming financially secure.

Liberals seek to take care of people from the start and don't embrace doing things the hard way (usually the right way), so they continue to find ways to coddle their dependents and look for new ways to take from the middle class. We are guilty of selfishly working toward our own goals and get no credit for giving to charity. (btw, Republicans give way more in charity than Democrats)

The politicians NEVER go after the wealthy and never will. They are beholden to them, so that leaves middle class as the target. When they preach to their dependents, they always refer to the wealthy as the villains, yet end up robbing the middle class instead.

After all these decades of the war on poverty, all we have is more people than ever collecting welfare. Liberals think the more people that need government, the more successful their programs are. We realize that the fewer that need assistance the better off we all are.

Sometimes it feels like liberals, especially the uneducated sheeple, not only resent those who have done better than they have, but support government rules that begrudge us the fruits of our own labor.

I am so sick of liberals claiming that the wealthy are the problem as they support the latest tax increases and such. It won't affect the wealthy, only middle class, and I wonder how many realize which class is taking the beating because of the liberal policies. Obamacare is killing middle class and liberals still support it. If anyone supports the destruction of middle class, it's because they are commies.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Yeah let's defund science and let people keep dying of cancer. Maybe you do stand for freedom in some areas, but defunding science is just stupid.

You should check out the book "Creating the Cold War University".

The book describes how our government partnered with the greatest universities in the nation in order to fund vital scientific advancements for our war against the Soviets. The government funded most of the research and development that created the technology that was later fed into the 80s consumer-electronics boom. The main areas of focus were satellite technology, communication technology, computer technology (i.e., every imaginable form of electronics technology), nautical technology and aerospace. And that's just the big things. The state sector also developed containerization (to allow our armed forces to move goods more efficiently) - and later seeded to private sector so they could ship their goods more efficiently. Obviously, you can imagine the technological sophistication that went into building the world's most advanced fighter jets at that time, and that's just a fraction the technology that was required to fight a global war where communication between periphery and center was vital. (And Republican voters don't know any of this)

The point is: some of the most profitable technology in the last 100 years was developed on the taxpayer's nickel, and then it was literally seeded to the private sector who, standing on the shoulders of government funding along with research-&-development, used these technologies to produce massive profits.

Today, corporations have created a lobbying empire in Washington DC in order to extract funding and technology from the government. The technology still mostly comes out of the Pentagon budget and what's left of the space program.

But the fact remains, it's hardly free enterprise when the state supplies the advanced industrial infrastructure along with massive investment subsidies and patent protections, and then the profiteers walk away with all the benefits (and then they use their profits to fund an anti-tax revolution so they don't have a reciprocal obligation to the host nation, which slowly crumbles as they parachute away with dynastic wealth).

We have raised a generation of Republicans who don't know how parasitic the market is on State supplied technology and funding. Profitable corporations like Boeing have received over a trillion dollars from the defense budget in the form of subsidies and technologies developed by the state sector.

The stuff isn't a secret. It's on the public record. The reason most people don't know it is because they get 100% of their information from pop media pundits and a whole universe of ridiculous blogs and slanted newspapers.

Entitlement spending accounts for trillions of dollars. Research is just a small sliver and it's actually in the Constitution(funding arts/sciences). Those entitlements aren't. And if your logic was true, then central planning would've worked great in the Soviet Union. After all, if the private sector is so "parasitic", a centrally-planned economy would easily beat us American numbskulls with our stupid free enterprise system. Of course, in reality, the central planners produced failure cars like the Trabant. The French government's computer, sent to every family, was a flop. Meanwhile, free enterprise, with entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, actually creates wealth and prosperity. I'd encourage you to take your snotty and smug blinders off and take a look at the failure of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and maybe your rose-colored glasses regarding the government will go away.

 

[KNB]

The Soviet Union collapsed because Reagan sold better weapons to Afghan terrorists.

**** the Heritage Foundation.

 

[S.J.]

The Soviet Union collapsed because Reagan sold better weapons to Afghan terrorists.

**** the Heritage Foundation.

Bullshit, the Soviet Union collapsed because Reagan bankrupted the paranoid bastards by making them spend all their resources trying to keep up with our military technology. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

The Soviet Union collapsed because Reagan sold better weapons to Afghan terrorists.

**** the Heritage Foundation.

You do realize that left-wing academics greatly overestimated the Soviet's GDP, right? The failure of central planning in the Soviet Union occurred well before the '80s, and Afghanistan was the least of their worries. Their people were starving and all wanting to move to the capitalist West.
EDIT: Why did you think they built a giant wall to divide East/West Germany? Do you think it was because people on the West loved central planning so much they wanted to go east? I don't think so.

 

[Contumacious]

The left believes in government. The right believes in freedom.


.

That may have been true before 1935. It is no longer true.

Socialist measures such as the Federal Reserve Board, the "income"tax and social INsecurity received BIpartisan support.

.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

The left believes in government. The right believes in freedom.


.

That may have been true before 1935. It is no longer true.

Socialist measures such as the Federal Reserve Board, the "income"tax and social INsecurity received BIpartisan support.

.

Note that the right does not necessarily equal Republican. The conservative wing of the GOP voted against social security and Medicare. Federal Reserve/income tax were passed when both parties were considered "progressive"(Wilson for Democrats, TR for Republicans).

 

[Truthmatters]

The founders believed in government

 

[Truthmatters]

You people don't believe in the right to vote.

Your traitors

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

You people don't believe in the right to vote.

Your traitors

Requiring a photo ID to vote, which I might note, is required to get welfare, go to school, board an airplane, book a hotel, buy alcohol/cigarettes, or do many other ordinary things, is hardly "taking away the right to vote".

With regards to the founders believing in government(in reality they believed in A GOVERNMENT, but not a massive, omniprescent one), I'd like to leave you with a few quotes:
"Government can be a handy servant and a dangerous master" - George Washington
"When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

These don't strike me as today's big-government liberal type quotes.

 

[Redfish]

You people don't believe in the right to vote.

Your traitors

Requiring a photo ID to vote, which I might note, is required to get welfare, go to school, board an airplane, book a hotel, buy alcohol/cigarettes, or do many other ordinary things, is hardly "taking away the right to vote".

With regards to the founders believing in government(in reality they believed in A GOVERNMENT, but not a massive, omniprescent one), I'd like to leave you with a few quotes:
"Government can be a handy servant and a dangerous master" - George Washington
"When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

These don't strike me as today's big-government liberal type quotes.

very well said, you just destroyed every liberal argument with one post