- Dec 18, 2011
- 12,919
- 4,824
- 350
Liberals know that their agenda isn't popular with the majority and if they were honest about what they'd like to do to this country, the liberal politicians would be given the boot pronto.
That is why they can't be upfront about their beliefs, and more importantly, their plans to transform this country.
When people are concerned about our second amendment rights being trampled, the favorite response from the left is that no one is going to take your precious guns and then they quickly change the subject and falsely claim that gun control will stop violence. In the first response, they already reveal themselves to be supportive of a total ban on guns. The correct response, for any constitution-loving American, would be 'Hell, no, we won't take guns, that would be wrong because it would infringe on the rights of millions of Americans." Of course, their response that we can keep our guns is said quite begrudgingly. They hate admitting that, at this time, they've no choice but to "allow" us to keep our guns. The argument that gun control or gun bans would make us safer has been sufficiently debunked numerous times, but it's an argument they will continue to push and will use every tragedy to push this false premise. They want our guns, have no doubt. That is why they admit we have this right, then turn around and say we don't because we are not militia members. Hmmm. Telling.
Nothing is accidental when the far left passes legislation. With Obamacare, all we've heard is excuses about unintended consequences that no one knew existed in the law. Yea, right. Obamacare was carefully written and there is a reason it was passed the way it was. No one was supposed to have a chance to read it before it was unconstitutionally shoved through. Even moderate Dems would have balked at the content of this onerous law. There are harmful things in the bill, which will cause hardships for people, especially the poor. It's no accident and certainly not unintended. One law regards home health care. The idea behind home health care was a good one. It saved billions in costs because the patients didn't have to go to a doctor's office or hospital to obtain routine care. Every state now has home health care workers who go to people's homes to monitor their recovery, take blood tests and other things that allow the person to stay in their home and the cost is low compared to what it would be if people had to seek care at medical facitilites. In the Obamacare law, home health care is going to slowly get phased out. People needing routine daily care will end up in nursing homes. Those that quality for Medicaid are going to have their homes confiscated by the state to cover the cost of the nursing home. That means people can't stay in their homes and their children will not inherit the family homes.
A few years back, Great Britain liberals talked about the crisis of housing shortages and their biggest complaint was 'under-occupied' homes. That is where an elderly couple still live in the family home and, according to liberals, have more room than they need. The idea is to force people to move to smaller homes, making the larger ones available to bigger families. And the people would have no choice in the matter. Never mind that the elderly people intended to leave their homes to their children, who may have larger families.
Liberals here balked when the question was bought up about whether they would do that here. No denials and they gave the usual response that no one was going to take your home. Now we see language in the Obamacare law that allows them to do just that. Again, the correct response to the question should have been, "Hell, no, you don't take people's property. This is America and we have rights." But, instead of a sharp defense of rights, we get lame denials. They are followed by assurances, uttered begrudgingly, that our rights won't be trampled. It reveals a lot about them.
Whenever you hear a liberal respond with a roll of their eyes and a denial that they intend to do this or that, beware. True patriots are quick to defend rights and call such socialist or communist ideas ridiculous and un-American. You'll never hear that kind of support for our constitution and bill of rights from a liberal. They merely acknowldge that we currently have such rights and tell us they can't do anything. Can't and won't are two different things and the legislation passed behind closed doors is giving them the power to change what they don't like about our country.
We have also heard that other countries opted to confiscate people's savings and retirement accounts. The liberals, who have had their eye on people's IRA accounts, said don't be ridiculous. No one is going to take all your money. They add, if they do take over IRA accounts, it will only be to protect them. The government has yet to take over anything and have it be successful. They get their hands on money and the money disappears. Yea, they want to help keep people's retirement safe. If we want it safe, no politician should be allowed to get anywhere near it.
No one is going to take your guns. No one is going to take your property. No one is going to take your money. No one is going to take your health insurance away. No one is going to trample your rights.
I am thinking that 'no one' is code for the radicals who currently enjoy power in this country. 'No one' has been passing a lot of oppressive legislation and no one is transforming this country into a liberal cesspool. No one is killing jobs deliberately. No one is destroying middle class. No one wants socialism.
I'm sure no one will regurgitate more talking points to insult me for posting this.
That is why they can't be upfront about their beliefs, and more importantly, their plans to transform this country.
When people are concerned about our second amendment rights being trampled, the favorite response from the left is that no one is going to take your precious guns and then they quickly change the subject and falsely claim that gun control will stop violence. In the first response, they already reveal themselves to be supportive of a total ban on guns. The correct response, for any constitution-loving American, would be 'Hell, no, we won't take guns, that would be wrong because it would infringe on the rights of millions of Americans." Of course, their response that we can keep our guns is said quite begrudgingly. They hate admitting that, at this time, they've no choice but to "allow" us to keep our guns. The argument that gun control or gun bans would make us safer has been sufficiently debunked numerous times, but it's an argument they will continue to push and will use every tragedy to push this false premise. They want our guns, have no doubt. That is why they admit we have this right, then turn around and say we don't because we are not militia members. Hmmm. Telling.
Nothing is accidental when the far left passes legislation. With Obamacare, all we've heard is excuses about unintended consequences that no one knew existed in the law. Yea, right. Obamacare was carefully written and there is a reason it was passed the way it was. No one was supposed to have a chance to read it before it was unconstitutionally shoved through. Even moderate Dems would have balked at the content of this onerous law. There are harmful things in the bill, which will cause hardships for people, especially the poor. It's no accident and certainly not unintended. One law regards home health care. The idea behind home health care was a good one. It saved billions in costs because the patients didn't have to go to a doctor's office or hospital to obtain routine care. Every state now has home health care workers who go to people's homes to monitor their recovery, take blood tests and other things that allow the person to stay in their home and the cost is low compared to what it would be if people had to seek care at medical facitilites. In the Obamacare law, home health care is going to slowly get phased out. People needing routine daily care will end up in nursing homes. Those that quality for Medicaid are going to have their homes confiscated by the state to cover the cost of the nursing home. That means people can't stay in their homes and their children will not inherit the family homes.
A few years back, Great Britain liberals talked about the crisis of housing shortages and their biggest complaint was 'under-occupied' homes. That is where an elderly couple still live in the family home and, according to liberals, have more room than they need. The idea is to force people to move to smaller homes, making the larger ones available to bigger families. And the people would have no choice in the matter. Never mind that the elderly people intended to leave their homes to their children, who may have larger families.
Liberals here balked when the question was bought up about whether they would do that here. No denials and they gave the usual response that no one was going to take your home. Now we see language in the Obamacare law that allows them to do just that. Again, the correct response to the question should have been, "Hell, no, you don't take people's property. This is America and we have rights." But, instead of a sharp defense of rights, we get lame denials. They are followed by assurances, uttered begrudgingly, that our rights won't be trampled. It reveals a lot about them.
Whenever you hear a liberal respond with a roll of their eyes and a denial that they intend to do this or that, beware. True patriots are quick to defend rights and call such socialist or communist ideas ridiculous and un-American. You'll never hear that kind of support for our constitution and bill of rights from a liberal. They merely acknowldge that we currently have such rights and tell us they can't do anything. Can't and won't are two different things and the legislation passed behind closed doors is giving them the power to change what they don't like about our country.
We have also heard that other countries opted to confiscate people's savings and retirement accounts. The liberals, who have had their eye on people's IRA accounts, said don't be ridiculous. No one is going to take all your money. They add, if they do take over IRA accounts, it will only be to protect them. The government has yet to take over anything and have it be successful. They get their hands on money and the money disappears. Yea, they want to help keep people's retirement safe. If we want it safe, no politician should be allowed to get anywhere near it.
No one is going to take your guns. No one is going to take your property. No one is going to take your money. No one is going to take your health insurance away. No one is going to trample your rights.
I am thinking that 'no one' is code for the radicals who currently enjoy power in this country. 'No one' has been passing a lot of oppressive legislation and no one is transforming this country into a liberal cesspool. No one is killing jobs deliberately. No one is destroying middle class. No one wants socialism.
I'm sure no one will regurgitate more talking points to insult me for posting this.
Last edited:
