Good grief is there any end to how conservatives can try to twist things, this
whole country is like a very bad marriage.If you belong to the NRA
does that mean the NRA owns you? No. Well... If you belong to the
Mormon church does that mean the mormon church literally owns you? If you belong to a scout troop...? No!It's a common phrase.
You should understand it allready.
Owned and controlled by a collectivist government is the same as going back to
the monarchies of the middle ages. Is this the way
Next time you complain about Romney's comments being distorted, think about
this letter. What a misrepresentation.
:"The government is the only thing we all belong to,":Give
me a break. I belong to the LDS faith - as do many people in Utah... and yet it
is not a statement of "ownership" by the church of me, or that my rights
have been subjugated by the church. What an amazing stretch of logic to try to
twist that into a negative. We are all members of a group called
"citizens of the United Sates of America" . We belong to this group.
This is not a statement of ownership, but of association. I belong to many
groups, and in doing so none of it implies "ownership" of me or my
rights by these groups.What a sad and desperate attempt to create
issue where any logical thinking person understands that we all "belong"
to this group as citizens through association. This is elementary school
Here we go again. Taking a statement out of context and then railing against an
unintended meaning. The right is so famous for that.Would you be as
critical when someone says "I belong to the LDS Church"? Oh, you mean
the LDS Church Owns you? My goodness, how sad is that? That guy is owned by
the LDS Church. Isn't that what cults do?See how ludicrous
that is?How about this. "We are all members of the
government"? Is that better? Guess what? Same meaning.
If the writer is referring to a video played at the DNC, they are wrong on every
level.It wasn't even Obama's voice, or him saying that.
It was something put together by the host city of Charlotte, and has been
disavowed by the Obama campaign. The DNC neither endorses it.Amazing what two minutes on Google can do.
I see no evidence to supportt the last paragraph.
Oh please . . .This is not what the DNC ad (not Obama) meant.
Belongs to as in we belong to a club, a church, etc.I support Romney
but I think the "conservative" talking heads do the cause more harm than
good.We have real issues folks and we are instead debating
stupidities. Surely independent voters of good will see this and recoil.
"The government is the only thing we all belong to," says a recent
Barrack Obama ad. There it is, as plain as day, another slogan describing how
the left feels about government.Art J. VanTielen=========== Of the People, By the People and For the People.Sad Art doesn't believe in it.BTW -- As Americans, it
IS the only things we ALL belong.We are all busted down from ther into
differnt States, Religions, race, clubs, schools, neighborhoods, ect.But
we ALL belong to that one thing in common -- The United States of
America.Sad the Government hating "right" doesn't feel
or undertand that.
Obama is exactly right; under his administration the government really does own
you. The government, through wealth re-distribution and so called
“economic justice” decides who succeeds and who doesn’t in
America, which means his government owns you. In the Obama administration the
“wealthy” are punished, ridiculed and hated so if you worked hard,
played by the rules, took risks, used your brain and actually produced
something, Obama says, “you didn’t build that” and confiscates
your property. Under the Obama administration, the government decides what your
kids will be taught in school, not you, so the government really does own you.
Under the Obama administration’s exploding welfare nanny state, the
government determines what you can eat (food stamps) and where you can live for
an ever growing segment of Americans, therefore, the government owns them. If
you are not one of the 47% of Americans that don’t pay federal income
taxes, just don’t pay your taxes, you will find out who really owns you!
Then there is the exploding national debt, who do you think really has to pay
for that? Hint; its not Obama!
The GOP constantly says that we need to stick with the issues, and the number
one issue is the Economy.As Twin lights said "We have real
issues folks and we are instead debating stupidities"Yet, it is
the GOP and those on the right who CONSTANTLY brings up petty, little, nit
picking points that are often not even true.I consider myself a
fiscal conservative (social moderate). But the daily pettiness of those on the
right make me want to distance myself from them. They are an embarrassment. Birth Certificates? college transcripts? Death panels? Sarah Palin?
Socialism? Obama wants to take God off our money? Obama wants to take away our
guns?Grow up. Discuss the real issues with facts and maturity. Want to bash Obama and the Dems? Fine, but choose real issues and stick
to the facts.The right would rather make up lies, and then be
outraged by them than satisfied with the truth.
It's amazing that some people see exactly what they WANT to see, despite
the obvious facts or quotes taken out of context. We could be
talking about the smokey air here in Utah and this person would be going off on
how Obama wants us all to belong to the government bla bla bla...
And if you think a Charlotte Democratic Party ad was not thoroughly vetted by
the Obama campaign - an ad that aired on the first night of the Democratic
National Convention IN CHARLOTTE - I've got a bridge to sell you in
Arizona.I'm sure they thought it was an innocent enough thing
to say, that we all belong to our government. What a great unifying idea...and
it makes perfect sense throguh a leftist view of the nation. But they found out
the hard way that conservatives understand what REALLY unifies us, and what we
REALLY belong to: WE THE PEOPLE, not the government.Government
serves the people...we do NOT belong to government. It's a critically
important distinction that doesn't equate with private organizations like
the NRA, which doesn't have the power to pass laws, arrest us, send us to
prison and raise a military.The Obama camp furiously backtracked
when this huge misstep cam to light, since they really didn't want another
"you didn't build your business" moment that further exposed the
left's true beliefs.
"Government is the only thing that we all belong to." It's great
to see everyone running away from this statement. (Well, almost everyone.)The whole idea of America is that we, the people, are masters of our
government, not the other way around. We ought to be reminded of it every once
in a while.
And Romney says that 47 % of the country is worthless. You can watch the hidden
camera on youtube. Amazing what happens when you take a sentence or
two out of context. Time for many Utahns to grow up and stop acting
@ Mountanman 8:06 a.m. Sept. 19, 2012Hayden, ID"Obama is exactly
right; under his administration the government really does own you."He may or may not own the 47% but can monitor the other 53% that to
Dick, Georgie, & the patriot act circumnavigating the FISA process. "Then there is the exploding national debt, who do you think really
has to pay for that? Hint; its not Obama!"Its not Dick's
pals in Riyadh but Mitt's buddies in Beijing?
Mr. Obama's honesty is admirable. He believes that without government
assistance "you didn't do that." It's not an insult or taken
out of context, it's his philosophy. Although brought up in the Chicago
style of politics, he is a good person. It's a different version of life
than Mitt Romney's, personal initiative versus government dependence. It is
the difference between believing that our government is omniscient,
all-providing, efficient and benign versus individual responsibility comes
first. There are still people in Russia who long for communism where little was
received but less was given.
Yes, this is another silly argument, this time by the opponents of Obama (his
supporters do this kind of thing all the time as well) so like "water off a
ducks back", I will largely ignore it even though I am conservative.My beef with Obama and others like him, is not that we "belong to,
or are members of, or are part of" government; but rather what the role of
that government should be in our lives.Republicans generally want a
smaller government that just does the minimal requirements of the Constitution
and for the most part "gets out of the way". This brings more freedom,
but also larger responsibilities on the part of the governed. This freedom also
allows some actions by individuals that some will not like.Democrats
generally want a larger government that micromanages a large portion of
everything from health care to the environment to wealth creation and
distribution. They want to "prevent all that bad behavior" that many
wealthy people do. If the right choices are made by government, then fewer
people have to suffer the consequences of poor decisions. Unfortunately, all
that power to manage people's lives leads to corruption.
It is sad that so many people wish to decline and refuse their membership in the
greatest human organization ever, America. God gave us life and
nothing more. No rights, no freedoms, no promises and no guarantees.The
life he gave us is not permanent, it may last only a microsecond or a number of
years but always ends the same way in death. If anyone can show proof of any
other analysis he should present it to us. The rights and freedoms
we have exist at the whim of the society we live in. They come and go as the
need arises. We have many rights and freedoms today that did not exist in the
colonial times and we have lost many rights that early Americans may have had.
But even though technology and expanded knowledge may give us new rights, the
new rights only exist if we have a government to secure them. To believe
otherwise is to deny the words of the Declaration of Independence.We
have done great things because we are together and not because we were a
collection of independent individuals.
Mountainman:Wow. Do you really believe what you wrote? Call it
redistribution if you want, but what the government does is provide many
necessary services (along with some unnecessary ones, like the Iraq War and
subsidies to oil companies). In order to do this, it levies taxes of various
kinds. These taxes are not equal in nature because we have certain social ideals
(that the Tea Party is trying to redefine), such as ensuring that all citizens
receive a good education, decent health care, food, and transportation. In order
to have any sort of civilized society, government must play a significant role.
The market is not capable of achieving anything other than providing products to
those who can afford them and doing it without considering such things as
long-term environmental consequences, or even long-term economic
consequences.I really doubt that you would find the utopia you
imagine a very pleasant place to live. Maybe you would, but I'd bet against
It's clear that the Obama apologists don't listen to Obama, or, if
they do listen to him, they agree with his ideas about redistributing wealth and
destroying our economy.It's no secret what Obama wants to do.
He clearly stated his designs and purposes as far back as 1998 in a speech to
Loyola University when he clearly told us that he believes in redistribution of
wealth. Redistribution of wealth is not Constitutional. The
government has no authority to take from one person and give to another person.
That concept is Marxist: To take from those who have and to give to those who
have not. Obama believes that Marxist theory. He preaches it as
often as possible. He tells students that they shouldn't have to pay for
their education. He tells people that some "rich guy" should pay for
their health care. He invites millions to join millions of others on the
welfare roles. He chastises those who hire, those who create businesses, those
who employ the masses. He wants everyone to beg at his doorstep for their food.
Be aware of how he "feeds" his brother George before signing on to his
So, was this the comment that changed your mind to vote for romney, or are you
just trying to blow up something out of nothing?
re:JoeCapitalistActually, the size of govt. is not the goal. Democrats,
remembering history, just don't have some naïve idea that we will
all be better off if only “govt. got out of the way.” The goal for
Democrats is an effective govt. only as big as necessary, to carry out the
purpose of the Constitution:“establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity"Govt. has grown in response to past abuses by powerful
indivduals and corporations. For example, during the late 1800's farmers
asked for govt. regulation of railroad companies which were charging unfair
rates and exercising monopoly power over transportation. In response, the
Interstate Commerce Act was enacted. There are numerous examples where
corporations formed monopolies and exploited/harmed workers, and consumers in a
myriad of ways. Democrats also recognize the tremendous advances in society
which came about as a result of govt.-private enterprise partnerships.
Democrats also believe govt.-charity/religious organizations can both work to
aid the disadvantaged and needy.
@ Kent DeForrest. Nice in theory but the realities of our nation are devaluation
of the dollar, massive debt and all its consequences; double digit inflation and
insolvency. If Obama gets reelected, before his second term ends, a loaf of
bread will cost $10.00 or more and a gallon of gasoline will be around $8.00.
Whom do YOU think will be harmed the most? If you said the poor, you will be
right. Don’t you find it a least a bit ironic that all these programs to
help the poor, actually end up harming them by creating dependency? Poverty in
America is increasing, not decreasing in spite of trillions in wealth transfers
to the poor! Self reliance has solved more poverty than food stamps ever have or
ever will! That’s the difference. Hope you have your food storage because
you are going to need it and that is the reality of things as they really are
and as they really will be unless we change our government and its no utopia!
Truthseeker,Based on your post, you sound a lot like a modern
conservative. If you really want an "effective govt. only as big as
necessary" then join the GOP, or at least get out of the Democrat Party!Obviously, I don't think the GOP really matches your political
beliefs. But I was making a point: conservatives also very sincerely believe
in only an "effective government, only as big as necessary". And
frankly, I give liberals the same benefit of the doubt regarding their
intentions. It's just that conservatives and liberals differ on HOW big is
the right size. Clearly, conservatives believe government has generally gotten
too big, while clearly liberals believe government isn't nearly big enough.
It's not that conservatives actually want "ineffective
government"; they just differ on what is effective.And yes, our
laws today are far too often the product of large special interest groups such
as corporations, labor unions, fanatical single-issue pressure groups, etc. But
the key isn't to give power to regulate political speech to government;
it's to allow a free and open marketplace of ideas so no one group has all
Why I'm Liberal Part II========== A Proclamation on
the Economy from the LDS 1st Presidency and Twelve"The
experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among
whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of
liberty, [and] are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression…". . . . ."One of the great evils with which our own nation is
menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a
comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers
contended so steadfastly and courageously, …, are endangered by the
monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and
a few powerful corporations. … It threatens to give shape to the
legislation, both State and National, of the entire country. If this evil should
not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous
growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of
destitution and want among the poor, the nation is liable to be overtaken by
disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful
was the sure precursor of ruin."
>Joe CapitalistI do get that conservatives want smaller government.
I've heard too many conservatives say that not to understand that
that's a central tenet of conservatism. But you have never once heard a
liberal say that we want a larger government. Conservatives say that about
liberals, but liberals never say it. Because we don't. Liberals (I
can say this, I am one), are completely indifferent to the size of government.
It's a completely nonsensical issue for us. We want government to be big
enough to do what it uniquely can and should do. National defense, rule of law,
infrastructure, education, a safety net for the poor and a modest leg up for
those struggling economically. If all that can be accomplished with fewer
government employees, fine. If hiring a few more people will help, we're
for that too. We don't want 'bigger government' and we
don't want government to control people's lives. We want effective
government, and that's all.
A republic is the embodiment of its citizens. Lincoln put it more eloquently in
calling it a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The
Constitution of the United States leaves no ambiguity on the matter with the
first three words, "We the People."It's easy to loose
sight of that in these times of partisan warfare when what was once the Party of
Lincoln now advocates a philosophy of seeing government as the root of all our
problems and Government welfare programs as dependency on something other than
ourselves. How did we wander so far off that when a current President for our
times can't state that simple message without having his words twisted and
distorted into a heresy?
MountanmanActually, 10 dollars for a loaf of bread and 8 for a gallon of
gas are NOT 'realities of our nation.' I know that, because I filled
up the tank yesterday after doing my grocery shopping. The kind of
hyperinflation you're afraid of isn't a 'reality of our
nation.' It's a conservative fantasy. It's science fiction. The
actual future of our nation will be gradually decreasing unemployment. And at
some point, the accumulated investment capital that right now is waiting on the
sidelines will kick in, and a boom will result, paying down the debt.Unless Romney is elected. Because his economic plans are, again, a fantasy.
The "goal" of government is to make government supreme and the people
mere subjects, instead of recognizing that the people rule and government
obeys.The Constitution guarantees that NOTHING will be done by
government that is not expressily allowed by the people. Government will have
NO authority that was not enumerated by the people. Government will provide NO
program that is not on that enumerated list.The reason for that
thinking is simple. Obama has proven that he cannot be trusted with the public
purse. He gave $49 BILLION to the autoworkers union at G.M. out of the public
treasury. He gave them another $39 BILLION in tax credits against future
earnings. Both of those items are prohibited by the Constitution. Some tell us
that he saved jobs. How many jobs could $88 BILLION buy? What did that
"job saving" stroke of the pen cost you and me?Government is
out of control. Obama is leading the charge. He demands full access to the
treasury and then he tells us that some "rich guy" will pay for
everything.He has lied. He has ignored the Constitution. He is in
violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.
Funny stuff! Dish it, but can't take it! All the little leftists are
swarming these boards today, working in overdrive trying to spin BHO's
words and statement. Funny how they are fine to redefine Romney's words and
tell us what he really said or meant, but now when the same thing happens to
their guy, the lamest president ever, they have a melt down. Romney
didn't back away from what he said, why is Obama and his minions running
away so fast? Romney doesn't have do redefine what he is or change it, we
know he is conservative. Obama is a leftist, bleeding heart lib, who believes
much more in the principles of big government socialism then freedom and free
enterprise. Redistribution of wealth is one of his strongest core values. Why
does he have to hide from this when he gets exposed? Stand up for your beliefs,
don't hide! Be a man Mr President!
JoeBlow,Your comment that the GOP brings up little nit picky things to
distract from the real issues is so far from the truth I can only assume MSNBC
is your main source of misinformation. Like I see BO constantly
talking his tremendous economic success, how he has brought unemployment back
down to 4.5% and we have consistent 3.4% economic growth with little to no
inflation. No, all BO can do is "Romney this" and "GOP that".
BO is running FROM his record.Truthseeker,So how big is
"only as big as necessary"? And where should that growth be? I liken
regulations to tack for horses; you need a saddle and bridle to ride, or a
harness to pull, but the amount of regulation dems push goes beyond, it is
fetters that bind the feet and blinders that obstruct vision and straps that
constrict breathing.LDS libJust did a search on the
church's webpage and found no such proclamation. Trying to pull a fast
one, or can you please direct me where I can verify your "proclamation"?
@ lost in DC 12:12 p.m. Sept. 19& which party keeps trotting out
emotional wedge issues (prayer in schools, death panels, flag burning, etc...)
to distract the simple minded ?Hint: I hear Hannity mention them of
similar ones often. Maddow infrequently if ever.
"The Proclamation on the Economy" of 1875 was important in its day, a
time of robber barons, railroad magnates and generally rampant monopolies. And
it was NOT an endorsement of political socialism but a statement against
personal greed! At the time, income distribution had basically a third-world
profile of mostly poor and tiny middle & rich classes. That all began to
change dramatically in the early 20th century after the GOP's Teddy
Roosevelt trust busting under the then-new Sherman Act. Today, income
distribution is light years more equitable than it was then. You can't
hang your hat on that 140-year-old proclamation as somehow an endorsement of
modern-day socialism.Nearly all modern-day prophets condemn
socialism, when they do speak on the subject. One example among many:"There is also another political party, who desire, through the influence
of legislation and coercion, to level the world. To say the least, it is a
species of robbery; to some it may appear an honorable one, but, nevertheless,
it is robbery. What right has any private man to take by force the property of
another?" John Taylor...a signer of the Proclamation on the Economy.
"Your comment that the GOP brings up little nit picky things to distract
from the real issues is so far from the truth"Actually I blamed
the GOP and those on the Right.So, they are not petty? Funny, Here
is a small list of types of things that those on the right love to discuss. If
you believe the left does it also, feel free to provide your own list.word limit reached, but_could_fill_pages.obamas vacation costsMichell Obamas wardrobeNancy Pelosis planeFood costs on Pelosis
planeObama golfingObamas TranscriptsObama is a muslimObamas poor brother in kenyaObama hates AmericaObama never worked
a day in his lifeObamas Terrorist Fist jabObama wants to take your
gunsObama didnt wear a flag pinObama wants to take God off our
moneyMuslim Brotherhood infiltrated Sec Clintons office Who paid for
Obamas schoolObamas Social Security number is from connecticutObama
didnt visit DDay monumentObama bows to SaudisObama didnt put his
hand over his heart during National AnthemObama stopped wearing his ring
and watch for RamadanObama paid to have his records sealedObamas
Chicago home was forclosed
Eric Samuelson: You said you were speaking for liberals by saying "We
don't want 'bigger government' and we don't want government
to control people's lives. We want effective government, and that's
all."You might even believe that, but that doesn't make
your statement any less nonsensical.The truth is liberals definition
of "effective government" includes a laundry list of tasks it must
perform that is at least 10 times as big as the list envisioned by
conservatives.Nearly every program progessives push forward
(Obamacare, EPA, Welfare, etc.) necessitates a bigger government - more taxes,
more regulations, more bureaucrats, more intrusion.I recognize that
not everything Democrats propose is "bad", just like reasonable liberals
recognize not everything Republicans propose is "bad", but our overall
philosophy and approach to what is "effective government" is far more
different that you suggest by your comment.
Can Republicans point to a Republican Congress and/or Republican President that
decreased the size of govt?
“What right has any private man to take by force the property of
another?" If it is wrong to take another’s property by
force, why is it OK to take another’s property by cunning, deception,
lies, fear, or mental superiority as is the case of most businessmen.
@Voice of Reason -- So is your argument that all taxes are the equivalent of
robbery? Do you realize that the consequence of no one paying any taxes at all
is anarchy? Sorry, but I believe taxes are the price we pay to live in a
civilized society. If you are not arguing that no one should pay taxes and
believe that some taxes are ok, then at what point do they become
"robbery"? Isn't that an issue for discussion rather than the
basis for an accusation that Democrats are "robbers" because they think
taxes for some people should go up to where they were during the Clinton years?
UltraBob: "If it is wrong to take another’s property by force, why is
it OK to take another’s property by cunning, deception, lies, fear, or
mental superiority as is the case of most businessmen."I could
think of a more appropriate quote to illustrate why so many liberals hate rich
people. They seem to think that everyone who has at least a million dollars has
no more ethics than Bernie Madoff. I seriously wonder if people like UltraBob
know any rich people at all.Sure there are bad eggs out there, but
they are the exception not the rule.P.S. Since when is "mental
superiority" (aka "smart") considered a flaw to be shunned?
TAXES:To wish to live in a country and not pay taxes is about
reasonable as wanting to drive a new luxury car off the car lot and not have to
pay for it. I don’t like paying taxes but if my house catches on fire,
I’ll call the fire department knowing that’s being funded by
taxes.SOCIALISM:Socialism is any system where all
members share the sacrifices and share the bread.THE SIZE OF
GOVERNMENT:Let's make government as small as it can be and as
large as it needs to be.
Eric,NICE TWIST!I see you continue the traditions of the left
by mis-stating what someone else said.Mountanman did not say we
currently had $10 bread or $8 gas, but that we would come to it under BO's
misadministration, so your illustration of what you did today is irrelevant and
misleading. please stop misquoting.Wally - you actually watch
Shammity and Madcow? THAT's your problem. But perhaps I was
not clear,Wally, JoeBlow,I am referrring to the campaigns run
by the actual candidates and their respective parties, not what talking heads,
bloviating voices, or even anonymous know-it-alls who post on boards (like all
of us, myself included, say) when I say the left obfuscates while the right
talks about issues.I hope that relieves your confusion
Amazing how the conservatives come out in droves to defend nonsense like this
letter. Amazing too how so many conservatives are trying to spin Mitt's 47
percent statement into something that makes him look like something other than a
rich snob who will say anything to get his fellow millionaires to pony up a
To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately you didn't read the rest of the
proclamation. If you had, you would see that it promotes owning stock in a
company, and establishes a private business that is owned by groups of people.
He was promoting what is now the US Stock Exchange.Also, if you
bothered to look at history, under the Progressive/Liberal system, you end up
with wealth and power being concentrated into the hands of a few people. That
Proclamation describes the problems of concentrating power into the hands of a
few people. While business is sigled out there, the same can be said about
government. By increasing the power and regulations of government as the
liberals advocate, you get the very evils that Pres. Young described.If that document is what makes you a liberal, then that shows that you are
only out to get power and control over your fellow man.
@Screwdriver:"If you belong to the NRA does that mean the NRA
owns you? No. Well..."If you belong to the NRA, or the Mormon
Church, or a scout troop... you can easily un-belong, un-join if that be your
desire.What Obama is trying to tell us is that we not only belong to
the government... it owns us, and thus, owns all our assets, and we can't
do anything about it. So stop moaning if the government wants to take some of
'your assets' and redistribute them to others who has an equal title
to them. That's where Barack Hussein Obama is going with this.
That's what he told Joe the Plumber. That's his background...
socialism. And he wants to convert this country to socialism. His corollary
statement about 'you didn't build that' is along that same line.
We're starting to see the big picture of who we have leading us.When are we going to get this guy out of our White House?"It's a common phrase. You should understand it already."I think we're catching on... see above.
How many of you comment makers have read the Constitution of the United States
recently? To educate many of you, it's a document which limits the power
of government and state what government is responsible for. For those
wondering, there are only 18 things! Conservative or liberal, the law is the
law and you can't ignore that. Everyone in Washington, D or R, they break
these laws continually and that can't be denied, no matter who you are
JoeCapitalist2Orem, UTMental superiority like other things,
weight, size, strength is only a flaw when misused to take advantage of those
with less. Like when church men are con men to unsuspecting members. Or like
when someone sells someone they don't need, like what happens to old folks
sometimes. Like the phone call that you won some cash and you only have to pay
@TruthseekerThe "blessings of liberty" are going to evade
us, if we don't stop borrowing money to "promote the general
welfare." In case you haven't noticed, we're $16,000,000,000,000
It's a fun game making things up and exagerating. Romney
believes all dogs should be strapped to the top of cars. Romney
believes half the country are all lazy moochers that don't do anything.Romney believes only rich kids should be educated.Romney
thinks selling stock to pay for college is a huge sacrifice that nobody should
have to go through.
This letter advocates anarchy.
1000 years ago the letter writer would have been stoned for bearing false
witness.Don't try to be an amature Limbot
Wonder - Where in the world did you get the idea that I think taxes are
"robbery"!? Obviously we need taxes in an appropriate degree to
provide government services. This is so typical...just because we observe the
obvious, i.e. there is too much government and so too much taxes, some lefties
jump to the conclusion that we are against ALL government and want NO taxes.
Howe ridiculous; please make a serious point and stop with the straw men.
@Voice of Reason -- Um...maybe because you used the word "robbery"??
Take a look at your post. If paying taxes is not the "robbery" you were
referring to, what do you mean? How are Democrats robbing anyone? I'm
sorry, I just don't get what you're trying to say I guess.
J Thompson said:The "goal" of government is to make government
supreme and the people mere subjects, instead of recognizing that the people
rule and government obeys.If "We the people" who are the
government and are elected every so many years, wouldn't this little plan
of the government fail? The Government is NOT A single person, when will
conservatives and the tea party realize that?
wrz said: If you belong to the NRA, or the Mormon Church, or a scout troop...
you can easily un-belong, un-join if that be your desire.So you
actually believe that the NRA or LDS Church OWNS YOU if you are a member? You
really can't see a difference?Analytical reasoning and common
sense not required by right wing radio fans.
The government is the only thing we all belong to huh?? I have to wonder what
our founders would think of that heresy? Government - the Federal Govt - was
NEVER intended to be what Obama envisions. Government was to be kept SMALL with
only a few things it is responsible for including national defense. The
government was NEVER supposed to own car companies and health care and
everything else on the planet.... at least not in a free republic.
@Happy Valley Heretic:"So you actually believe that the NRA or
LDS Church OWNS YOU if you are a member? You really can't see a
difference?"No, no. You got that backwards.It's common parlance to say you belong to something... like an
organization. The doesn't mean the organization owns you. And to prove
it... you can easily disassociate yourself from the NRA, LDS Church, and Boy
Scouts. That's the difference. You can also disassociate your self from
the government... just move out."Analytical reasoning and common
sense not required by right wing radio fans."You'll find
herd mentality in the left wing radio fans.It's truly comical
to watch left wingers spout almost identical talking points on talk shows. They
don't answer questions... they merely respond to any question by a show
host with a prepared talking point, striving to get the whole point out before
the host has to cut them off. They're like a recording machine.
One of my favorite movies - Open Range - has a quote that is very pertinent
here. In Open Range the movie - a small town was being run by a corrupt cattle
man that bought off the sheriff and controlled everything. The people all lived
in fear until one day an outsider cowboy (Kevin Cosner) suggested the only way
to make things right was to STAND UP to the corrupt cattleman - the entire town
stand up together and fight and that is what they did. Today we live in a
polarized society created by Barack Obama. Obama wants to control EVERYTHING in
our lives which means our freedom disappears. There really is no common ground
anymore between liberals and conservatives and no room for compromise.
Compromise with Obama means saying goodbye to freedom and prosperity. The time
has come to draw a line in the sand and fight for capitalism and freedom -
against socialism and government control.
Wonder - I didn't say it...John Taylor, the third president of the LDS
Church said it. His words, not mine. I was simply pointing out that, back in
the 1870's when that supposedly "socialistic" proclamation by the
Church was issued, signers of that same document were condemning actual
socialism. In other words, that proclamation was against PERSONAL greed; it was
NOT advocating socialistic government as some on here have tried to spin it.
And goodbye honest undecideds to Romeney and FOX friends. This is
why I left the republican party in the first place. One day it hit me that Rush
and FOX could talk all day without facts about how everything was Clinton's
fault. Thanks goodness I stopped willfully enjoying being lied to everyday.
I'm much happiernow that I can fact check my liberal news and find
it's true. You can't fact check conservative media because
they don't bother presenting any facts.
Patriot... are you actually trying to suppose that the founding fathers were
singular in opinion on this. That in fact there were not Federalist and
anti-Federalist of the time. What version of history has it that these founding
fathers agreed that government should be small and limited to defense.I think you are out of post, but in the future, please point to the where you
are deriving this interpretation of history. It really gets old
this vision of history where founding fathers all agreed, that 100 years later
we didn't fight a civil war over a dispute whether states held the right to
define who is human, and who is not, and if some of these "truths"
superseded a states rights. Never, for a single instant in the
history of this country was there ever a time both sides agreed on the shape,
scope or limits of the government. It has been a 230 year argument.
Suppose that in this community there are ten beggars who beg from door to door
for something to eat, and that nine of them are impostors who beg to escape
work, and with an evil heart practice imposition upon the generous and
sympathetic, and that only one of the ten who visit your doors is worthy of your
bounty; which is best, to give food to the ten, to make sure of helping the
truly needy one, or to repulse the ten because you do not know which is the
worthy one? You will all say, Administer charitable gifts to the ten, rather
than turn away the only truly worthy and truly needy person among them. If you
do this, it will make no difference in your blessings, whether you administer to
worthy or unworthy persons, inasmuch as you give alms with a single eye to
assist the truly needy.
To "LDS Liberal" if what you say is correct, then why does the LDS
church put signs around the Salt Lake Temple telling its patrons to give only to
the shelters, and not to the beggars outside the temple?According to
what the church you claim membership in has written, it is better to give to a
charity that will help the truely needy and turn away the 9 imposters.Which is, are you correct, or is the LDS church correct about how best to help