Losing Our Liberties, One Step at a Time.

[Sgt Staples]

How many liberties are liberals willing to give up for us all, for the "Good Of the Collective" of course.

Liberals believe that government bureaucrats should decide which kind of shower head, faucet and commode we are allowed to buy.

Liberals believe that government bureaucrats should decide what types of Medical treatments we can and cannot receive, through either government controlled health care or government controlled insurance.

Liberals believe that government bureaucrats should decide, through either regulation or taxation, what type of energy we are allowed to use, how much we are allowed to use and how much we will pay for it.

Liberals believe that government bureaucrats should decide, through regulation or taxation, or CAFE standards, what type of private transportation we are allowed to have.

Any other things you liberals want government to control, and freedoms you will sacrifice for the "good of the collective?"

How far will you take it?

Should government bureaucrats be able to tell us what kind of food we can eat, either through regulation or taxation?

And since every human activity affects either the air, the water or the environment, Should should government bureaucrats (in the name of protecting the environment) be able to determine what activities we can and cannot engage in, what type of homes we are allowed to build, etc.

Because this type of ideology, carried to its ultimate end results in a tyrannical police state, as is proven by world history.

Myself, I would rather have the millions of free Americans making 10's of millions of decisions ever day as to what goods and services they want and let the private free market provide those goods and services; It's called Liberty.

However Liberals are willingly duped by the propagandists who tell them if just the centralized bureaucracy in Washington controlled everything, there would be a utopian society, that their laws would eliminate poverty, that more laws would eliminate pollution, that more laws would eliminate disease.


That is why Liberals SCARE THE HELL OUT OF ME.

 

[Citizen]

yeah that Right Wing Bush & HIS Patroit Act. Yep right wingers want a facist police state & thats been PROVEN time & time again by thier actions .

 

[BRU]

yeah that Right Wing Bush & HIS Patroit Act. Yep right wingers want a facist police state & thats been PROVEN time & time again by thier actions .

Sadly Obama has done nothing to change that eh?

 

[OldGaffer]

Sadly Obama has done nothing to change that eh?

Hey, do you think your boy Romney is going to change any of the Bush policies? I thought you Wingers liked Bush and his policies, you spent 8 years defending them to the death.

 

[middleview]

I grew up in Western PA in the 50s and 60s. Government rules have improved the air and water significantly.
The fatality rate for auto accidents had changed substantially because of seat belts and other safety regulations.
The amount of foreign oil that we'd be importing would be substantially higher if not for government regulations. Imagine if we were all driving the equivalent of a 1964 Impala.

Government inspections of food and drugs have improved the number of people striken by food poisoning or tainted pharmaceuticals...

That you think we'd be better to go back to the 1920s or even earlier when the National Guard would open fire on Union strikers is why people like you scare the hell out of me.

 

[OldGaffer]

"good of the collective?"

I do like the use of this commie sounding phrase, instead of the "good of society" that is the correct phrase, it shows a high degree of partisan hackery and Winger immersion.

 

[Sgt Staples]

I grew up in Western PA in the 50s and 60s. Government rules have improved the air and water significantly.
The fatality rate for auto accidents had changed substantially because of seat belts and other safety regulations.

CAFE regulations did accomplish one thing -- they killed drivers and passengers in large numbers. By lightening cars and removing material, auto companies were inadvertently discarding the armor that protected motorists in the event of a crash. Similarly, the compressed new models lacked space for impact forces to attenuate before causing damage and injury. Drivers in lightweight cars were as much as twelve times more likely to die in a crash. It was once said about American autos that they were "built like tanks." Many of the new models from the late '70s onward more closely resembled go-carts -- and proved to be about as sturdy.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the fatal results of mileage regulations, starting in 1989 with the Brookings Institution (in collaboration with the Harvard School of Public Health), followed by USA Today in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences in 2001, and at last the federal government's own National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration in 2003. This formidable lineup of organizations all came to the same conclusion: Fuel standards kill.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/death_by_cafe_standards.html

Government inspections of food and drugs have improved the number of people striken by food poisoning or tainted pharmaceuticals...

Do you really think that companies that produce poisonous food and drug products would stay in business for any length of time. Of course not! That's the beauty of freedom, companies making bad or inferior products fail.

Meanwhile the government is banning medications based on the percentage of people cured by the medication and based on its cost to government run insurance programs.

That you think we'd be better to go back to the 1920s or even earlier when the National Guard would open fire on Union strikers is why people like you scare the hell out of me.

No, but I know that we'd be better of if unions were limited to insuring good working conditions and fair wages, out of which workers save for their own requirements, rather than massive UN-sustainable benefit programs that raise prices for everyone, bankrupt companies or drive them overseas to be competitive. And if unions are so great, why are you force to join one in order to work in non-right to work states?

I take my chances with the UN-certainity of liberty, rather than the certainty of TYRANNY.

I don't care if you want to enslave yourself, but the problems is that you're taking the rest of us down the sewer with you.

 

[Sgt Staples]

"good of the collective?" I do like the use of this commie sounding phrase, instead of the "good of society" that is the correct phrase, it shows a high degree of partisan hackery and Winger immersion.

Sorry if the truth hurts. The terms 'good of the collective' and 'good of society' are synonymous.

By the way, How is Mrs. Marx. I bet she's overjoyed to see such a loyal follower in the White House.

 

[OldGaffer]

Sorry if the truth hurts. The terms 'good of the collective' and 'good of society' are synonymous.

By the way, How is Mrs. Marx. I bet she's overjoyed to see such a loyal follower in the White House.

Sociopathic Social Darwinists have no interest in anything but their own benefit, survival of the fittest, devil take the hindmost, and sorry about your luck, the mantra of the Reich Wingers.

 

[Sgt Staples]

Sociopathic Social Darwinists have no interest in anything but their own benefit, survival of the fittest, devil take the hindmost, and sorry about your luck, the mantra of the Reich Wingers.

Spoken like a true Communist.

Oh, by the ways Fascism is much closer to Communism than it is to Conservatism.

The National Socialist Party of Germany had policies that severely restricted private firearm ownership, provided a national government funded higher public education, a national government funded health care system, controlled private sector corporations, etc.

 

[OldGaffer]

Spoken like a true Communist.

Oh, by the ways Fascism is much closer to Communism than it is to Conservatism.

The National Socialist Party of Germany had policies that severely restricted private firearm ownership, provided a national government funded higher public education, a national government funded health care system, controlled private sector corporations, etc.

Right, and the American Nazi Party and the KKK voted for Obama.

 

[middleview]

1. The Wiemar republic actually had a death penalty for illegal possession of weapons or ammunition. The Nazis relaxed that substantially....unless you were a Jew.
2. The Nazis banned abortion (unless you were an untermenchen).
3. The Nazis enforced titheing and even collected your 10% and sent it on to your church for you. That is why the Catholic church had such a hard time being anti-Nazi.
4. The Nazis basically guaranteed profits for corporations. The Nazis allowed the ownership of private corporations and had a stock market. There were some instances of government control of companies related to the production of war material, but that was fairly limited. I think the Krupp family lost control of their factories for a bit, because the head of the family turned against the Nazis....but Messerschmidt, Junkers, BMW, Mercedes....and the banks were very much pro-Nazi and were privately managed throughout the war.....Even some American companies profited nicely from Nazi Germany....IBM for one, GM for another.

You think only communist countries have government funded health care or higher education? Look around you.

 

[degsme]

How many liberties are liberals willing to give up for us all, for the "Good Of the Collective" of course.

That of course explains why Gingrich, Romney and Santorum all talk about "working for a greater good".

Liberals believe that government bureaucrats should decide which kind of shower head, faucet and commode we are allowed to buy.

Can you point to a bill suggesting this? You cannot. Making shit up again are we?

Liberals believe that government bureaucrats should decide what types of Medical treatments we can and cannot receive, through either government controlled health care or government controlled insurance.

As opposed to some mid-level accountant with a degree in Bidness from Podunk U making the call today with no appeal available? with your employer picking the plan based on the cheapest costs to them?

Liberals believe that government bureaucrats should decide, through either regulation or taxation, what type of energy we are allowed to use, how much we are allowed to use and how much we will pay for it.

Hmm so you don't want science to be the basis for the decision making? interesting

Liberals believe that government bureaucrats should decide, through regulation or taxation, or CAFE standards, what type of private transportation we are allowed to have.

How do CAFE standards limit what transportation you can use? You can always pay for building whatever vehicle you want. But you just end up reflecting the true costs involved. That's the free market at work

Should government bureaucrats be able to tell us what kind of food we can eat, either through regulation or taxation?

Want some oats with tha tstraw?

And since every human activity affects either the air, the water or the environment, Should should government bureaucrats (in the name of protecting the environment) be able to determine what activities we can and cannot engage in, what type of homes we are allowed to build, etc.

And since every one of us breathes air, should we all instead be suing each other in local, regional and district courts to resolve this?

Or would you prefer that Might makes right?

Your alternative to protecting my private property from your intrusion is what?


Right because we want to protect private property we scare the hell out of you.. that makes ....sense.....