Liberal Policies Always Expand To Central Government Controls
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If there is a “right” to government healthcare and a “right” to tuition-free college, why is there no “right” to toilet paper, toothpaste, carrots and vitamin supplements? There is just as much need for the cleanliness of toilet paper and the nutritional value of carrots and vitamins as there is a need for government-provided higher education, and the need is more urgent for the carrots and vitamins because one cannot partake of an education program without proper health and nutrition coming first. But of course, the answer as to why college, and not vitamin supplements, is being promised to all Americans is because leftists always appeal to the members of society who are the most volatile, least informed and most likely to resort to violence to get the selfish things they want, and that’s today young people, represented by the ANTIFA crowd that loves to beat and burn.
So, as the demands of America’s leftist politicians provides for government healthcare and free education, the leftist government will expand the “rights” they believe will be needed to further their idea of a proper government, with working tax payers, as usual, picking up the ever-expanding bill for all of these goodies via confiscation of their wages.
But perhaps more important than “rights” is the availability and “access” to healthcare, college, toilet paper and carrots. If “access” to healthcare ends, in exchange for a new “right” to these things , and it usually does as Socialist/Communist governments tighten the “rights” screw on the larger population, then whether or not you have a “right” to healthcare becomes irrelevant, because there will be no more of it available for consumption or use, as the free “right“ is used to the saturation point and doctors retire or just stop working because the demand for their services, to which everyone now has a “right“, becomes over-burdened, and as the government begins paying them less in order to reduce the ever-increasing use and cost of the free thing, while still demanding more hours of work each day of the doctors and nurses, who have been inundated by an entire population who have a “right” to free healthcare.
In a Capitalist society “access” is always uppermost and always in play as entrepreneurs invent things and develop new ways to manufacture and deliver products and services, with the idea of making a “profit” from the new inventions and methods, which satisfies both the entrepreneur and the public. But under a Socialist government there may be “rights” aplenty, but does anyone have the ability to exercise this “right”, and is there any of it to “access”, after government controls have been put in place to regulate it, require it, or eliminate it?
(Article Continues Below Advertisement)
As we saw in Venezuela, “rights” were assured to the citizens of that forlorn nation, but after the government placed controls on the prices that could be charged by farmers for growing vegetables, and after prices were placed on grocers controlling the prices they could charge when selling these items, it ended up that no one would grow them and no one would open a store to sell them, and the nation of Venezuela is now starving to death in the midst of enormous oil and mineral wealth, which is, once again, controlled by the government.
Liberals believe in making all things that they like, mandatory; and they forbid and make illegal all things that they don’t like. History is a great place to look to see how these things turn out, but reading a bunch of old books is too boring for Socialists, and, unfortunately, these same big-government advocates are too wrapped up in their idiotic plans to establish all kinds of additional “rights” to look at current events and recognize that Venezuela is staring them right in the face and telling them the error of their ways, and they can’t see a thing.
Tags
Who is online
54 visitors
Liberals believe in making all things that they like, mandatory; and they forbid and make illegal all things that they don’t like. History is a great place to look to see how these things turn out, but reading a bunch of old books is too boring for Socialists, and, unfortunately, these same big-government advocates are too wrapped up in their idiotic plans to establish all kinds of additional “rights” to look at current events”
Like marijuana, abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage.
Oh, wait.
None of which are legitimate rights in the Original or amended constitution of the United States of America. All are illegitimate add on assumptions by activist liberals who hate the constitution and its original declarations of negative rights. Things that government couldn’t do to us because another is the author of all natural human rights. All of what you mention are frauds perpetrated against America by secular progressives, her greatest domestic enemy.
Are liberals trying to make those things mandatory, or did you stick your foot in it again?
Open mouth, insert foot.
They are trying to trample on the religious liberty of some and coerce them against their will and religious beliefs to in some way participate in a sham so called marriage, a perversion of the legitimate ceremony ordained by God.
You're evading because you stuck your foot in it again. You let your determination to attack liberals lead you to say something that wasn't true, and now you're just digging yourself a deeper hole.
Fun to watch, I must say.
Just because I disagree with you on an issue does not make it not true. It is not a lie to disagree with a liberal. [deleted]
That's right, xx. Triple down. Nobody said it was a lie to disagree with a liberal. This was your untrue statement:
You were called out on it, and your response was to insult and evade, because you couldn't support your statement.
Hate to break it to you but marriage was around long before your God came into being.
Marriage was a legal contract, not a religious contract. Please read up on history and just stop with the faux christian persecution.
You clearly have never read the bible. God never said a thing about marriage. [deleted Katrix, I know you are still getting used to NT, but you are not allowed to say "stop lying". You can say, "Stop misrepresenting what the bible says".]
I stand by all of my statement and now quadruple down on it to you. Not backing down, not now, not ever! What I said was correct.
That’s not possible since God created mankind and he instituted marriage at creation. Nothing existed before God did because time is endless and He has always existed.
So, you have links that support that liberals want to make everyone partake of marijuana, marry someone of the same sex, get abortions, and use contraception? I'm sure you'll produce them, yes?
Your comments are really starting to look ridiculous, xx.
Yeah? Prove it.
And frankly, even if you could prove it, which you can't, it doesn't matter, anyway. Our laws aren't based on what people you can't prove ever existed are supposed to have said is the will of a god you can't prove ever existed.
That has to be one of the funniest, and stupidest, comments I've ever seen. You clearly don't know much about the history of marriage, not that that stops you from pretending you do.
It's also hilarious that you pretend you know exactly what your god wants and how it thinks ... Jesus referred to people like you as false prophets. And he did not have good things to say about them, or about what would happen to them.
True.
[deleted-] claiming things the bible never said, as if he is some type of prophet and he alone speaks for his god. He recently said something to you about "it's stronger than me than in you" - I think I have a really good idea what "it" is, but it would be a CoC to state it.
[Please discuss the topic and not the person.]
Dawkins was an absolute idiot when it came to matters dealing with realms he knew nothing about, such as God and religion.
[deleted]
How is his description wrong? If you believe the bible, then you would have to admit that he's spot on. Take jealousy, for example - how can you claim your god is not jealous?
Dawkins clearly knows more about God and religion than you do. Again, have you even read your bible?
Your god OUTRIGHT SAYS that it is a jealous god.
Sheesh.
Nope.....Christianity wasn't a thing with early man and early civilizations, so try again. EVER here of BC...you know Before Christ.....people prayed to deities that are NOT the God you pray to....please just stop showing how obtuse you can be.
People prayed to false fake gods. The first humans worshipped our real God. When the number of believers dwindled to a handful and the earth was wildly evil the flood came. After the flood 8 humans repopulated the earth and after congregating together at Babel the languages were confounded and people then settled globally over time. Many did forget God. The plan of salvation revealed after the fall of humanity to sin in Eden was never completely forgotten. Abraham in traveing from Ur to Canaan encountered other believers in God.
No they did not. No, there was no great flood, those are just made up stories.
They are our common earth history.
Nope, try again.
We'd never have it any other way, KAG.
Which is to say all gods.
Nope, just your "false fake" history.
Just as firmly as you "know" there is one.
He’s the only human who has searched throughout the entire universe for God and come up with nothing.
How is that any sillier than Christians assuming their god either magically appeared out of absolutely nothing, or always existed? If you can believe that about a supernatural being, why can't you accept it about matter?
And C4P's comment about the Tower of Babel ... seriously, you don't really believe that's why people speak different languages? That's one of the silliest stories in the bible. And yet you think science is ridiculous?
You're being logical, katrix! That's kinda pointless, you know...
If I believed in any gods, I'd have no problem with them having appeared out of nothing or having already existed. Well, I'd have the same problem as I do with matter - I can't quite wrap my head around it, but I accept it. I haven't studied quantum physics in depth and it does somewhat boggle my mind. But the reason I don't believe in gods has nothing to do with where they would have come from in the first place. But religious believers seem to have no problem thinking that their god(s) always existed or came from nothing, while scoffing at those of us who accept that matter has either always existed or came from nothing.
I know no one who believes everything in the Bible as written, do you?
Yes. We have at least one on this site. They're called literalists, and apparently about 28% of Christians are literalists. And I know others in real life, such as my sister (who is a young earth creationist). One problem with literalists is that none of them will admit that they are interpreting the bible (they all seem to think they personally have the correct understanding), and so even the literalists don't all agree with each other. And they have to completely disregard the contradictions in the bible, or their heads would probably explode. They're also the ones who fight the hardest against science and such, because if they can be convinced that even one part of the bible isn't true, their entire faith is threatened. Non-literalists don't have that problem. For example, I don't know any non-literalists who believe the silliness about the Tower of Babel being the reason why people speak so many languages.
Your sister is right!
Actually, she's totally wrong - the Earth and universe are far older than 6000 years. Only a completely ignorant person would believe otherwise.
But thanks for proving what I said to Texan.
giggle....snort
Apparently, the seeder does, as evidenced by comment 2.1.37. Does that count as somebody we "know"?
Sadly....... it does...
Different parts have different purposes and meanings but all of it is the inerrant word of God
There are apparent contradictions. Who has the authority to resolve them? That authority would, effectively, be speaking as God.
Whom do you recognize as speaking as God?
What is sad about people believing that The Holy Bible is The word of God?
Because it makes them totally ignorant. So much of it is clearly not true, and the mental gymnastics required to keep oneself believing otherwise, and pretending there are no contradictions, could better be spent learning about actual facts and science. It makes absolutely no sense to be a literalist. And anyone who is a literalist believes in an evil immoral god, which is even worse.
If we want to make America greater, we have to increase our scientific knowledge, not our stupidity.
BTW, your YEC beliefs date from the 1800s ... even most literalists don't believe that crap.
When my mom became a deacon, one of her favorite classes was the one on the contradictions in the bible. After all, if your congregation has any brains at all, they're going to see those contradictions and ask you about them.
Actually that is not the position of science. The singularity is not literal nothing. Rather it is a net zero energy state replete with particles and anti-particles but no clumps which we call matter. It is the lowest level of entropy.
So do not be amazed, you are being amazed by a misunderstanding.
Infinity is very hard to wrap one's mind around!
At the singularity, infinity is the result of our knowledge of science falling apart. Something was going on but science is entirely baffled by what. Another opportunity to wedge in God.
Adam and Even had 2 sons...where did their wives come from?
How do you know they didn't have access to poppies?
Who said that?
And why do you so often move the goalposts? You said " inerrant word of God", but now you let disappear the word "inerrant", which is essential to the previous quote.
I always wonder about your incessant shifts. Are you trying to be confusing, or do you not control your thinking? Or is there some other explanation?
Or Modern Day Texas minus the Dr Pepper and meth
Details ...
The curious and the impertinent demand to know
Yeah, knowing about something that doesn't exist and the rickety, corrupt institutions that prop that non-existent entity wouldn't have been high on his to-do list. Yet, somehow I'm sure he knew much more about the believers than those people know about themselves.
IOW, the go-to gambit for ignorance.
All hail the secular progressive left superstate designed to turn us from citizens with God given rights into dependent drone lackey subjects dependent upon the state regime for whatever benevolence they may deign to send our way I’d we are sufficiently obedient.
I've yet to see conservatives that follow Christ. They ignore him everyday.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Right back atcha.
that's ironic coming from you
Some think that all conservative opinions expressed ae a sweeping generalization but they’re not
Keep pretending you don't know what I'm talking about
“Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Mark, 7:6
This is hilarious, coming from the guy who wants the government to have control over my body.
No we want to protect the life and rights of the other more innocent and deserving person, the preborn human. We choose life.
Then I assume you're all for forcing people to donate kidneys and portions of their livers, regardless of their own opinions on the matter.
So some unborn fetus who was killing my mother was more important than she was?
that's fucked up, XX
So there we have it. You think a clump of cells is more deserving than a human women.
That is absolutely despicable.
All those are part of me and and a separate and equal person. And for the record, I’m a registered donor so when I die all the parts of me than can be donated will go to others in need.
What is truly despicable is calling another living human being a clump of cells thus objectifying him or her to thus more easily rationalize the termination of that preborn human life.
A woman is a separate and equal person. But you would force her to give the use of her organs to keep alive a fetus, whether she chooses to do so or not.
I deliberately chose kidney and liver because those can be donated by live donors. You won't die if you give up a kidney or part of a liver (well, probably not, anyway), so why shouldn't you be forced to let others use your organs, as you would choose to force women to let others use theirs?
You want to impose on women that which you would not tolerate for yourself.
What is truly ignorant is not understanding what a zygote, embryo, and fetus are - despite having been taught numerous times.
He would have my mother give her heart to a a fetus instead of keeping it for herself
And as Sandy pointed out, he won't even provide a kidney for someone who will die without it, even though he could live just fine with a single kidney. Actual human beings are apparently not on his list of things to care about.
Ugh.
There it is folks..the unwitting admission that these people are also making their own value judgement about who should live. The big difference is that they're pretending they have the moral high ground when in fact their values are subterranean. The other massive hypocritical point this exposes is that they are followers of a religion that believes the "pre-born" is tainted with "original sin" and yet this one claims it is the innocent and "more deserving." They've declared themselves god and have set up their own rules.
And yet you rank the embryo's life above the mother's. Disgusting.
You're not choosing life if you want the living woman to keel over dead
Abortion to save the life of the mother is always justified and I have never opposed that.
That comment totally contradict this one you had just made:
You clearly ranked a fetus as more deserving of life than a woman. You really need to start reading your own comments before clicking the post box. Or maybe you do and you really mean something as monstrous as that.
There is a difference between temporary use of an organ to keep another equally important human alive and permanently giving up forever all or part of an organ that can’t be replaced. That being said, I never ever said that I would refuse to donate while still alive. Not sure what you made that up from. What I did say is that I am a donor and that when I die whatever is useful to anyone in need will be donated.
A human is a human from the moment of conception without exception. Period.
Prove where I said that or take back that deliberate defamation and lie about me. Just because I said that they are a part of me rather than a separate alive other living human being in no way whatsoever could honestly be construed into my refusal to ever donate them. That was a big league character assassinating attempt stretch.
I rank the baby’s life above the convenience of the mother. I rate the mothers life higher than the preborn human if the pregnancy is a threat to the mothers life. Abortion to save the life of the mother is always justified.
You can keep trying to run away from your first comment on this subject above but you can't hide from it with these lame attempts to amend it. You said what you meant to say the first time. No backsies here, KAG.
The very life of the baby is more important than the selfish convenience of the one seeking an abortion. It is the innocent victim if terminated for less than the life of the mother, though abortion done due to pregnancy resulting from rape and or incest is morally defensible even though the child receives capital punishment for the sins of the father.
The fact that you demean the woman's motivation to "convenience" without knowing anything about the many reasons women might choose to not be pregnant. Your misogyny screams out from every one of your comments on this subject.
That has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've ever seen on NT...
Not to mention disgusting.....but I don't think it's his worst and even if it is, he'll no doubt soon top it.
I’ve already said that I support abortion to save the life of the mother or when the baby is deformed to the extent that he/she can have no quality of life after birth and that I don’t oppose abortion in the event of rape and incest. I’m being totally reasonable here.
A poll taken by the Guttmacher institute resulted in these chart
Most if the reasons (around 90%) given as to why a woman had an abortionsure look like it was convenience to me
I never said you would refuse to donate. Would you support it being mandatory?
Or do you think people have autonomy over their own bodies? People of both sexes, even.
Then what was the meaning of never in your last sentence/paragraph in 5.1.7?
and from the second one at 4% to the one at 25% inclusive could relieve the given issue with placing a born child with an adoption agency or adoptive couple.
every one of those is a good reason
Reason from the 4th one to the 9th are piss poor reasons. Number 10 is an unknown so could go either way
If the mother does not want the child what makes you think she is going to take good care of it?
You would not tolerate mandatory live organ donation, if yours were the organs in question.
That's because you've never had an unwanted pregnancy yourself and never will. It's called "mansplaining" and it's one of the biggest factors driving women away from Republicans so please keep it up and encourage all your candidates to step it up.
Mansplaining.....good. Keep it up. You and like-minded rightwingers may help Dems get elected by women who are sickened by that shit.
By forcing a woman to take a pregnancy to term. You just can't "get it" and never will. But I do have to give you and others (arkpdx, e.g.) some "props." You're helping to drive women away from Republicans. Keep up the good work.
So it is all about convenience and selfishness as adoption would prevent a person from having to care for the child under any of those circumstances with out the termination of his or her life.
and just what is wrong with the convenience of the mother?
Actually, I just found more proof that you're wrong. A new study shows that there are "gates" in a woman's reproductive system, and that the sperm have a race. The ones with higher velocity make it through the gates, and the others don't. Of course we already knew that Every Sperm is Sacred, but this provides further proof. So all these anti-sex religious fanatics are murdering preborn humans all the time, by being so hung up on the preachings of that idiot Paul (note how these same people ignore Jesus' teachings - it is really Paul they worship). Sperm are alive, they compete with each, and maybe the ones that don't make it feel sad before they die - they might have feelings, since they're preborn humans. But at least they all have a fighting chance, unlike the sperm of the fanatics.
Wait...wait...wait....
A sperm is only half-human
Yes, but zygotes and embryos aren't human either ... so if they are "preborn humans" than so are sperm and ova. Although ova don't seem to have unique personalities as sperm do, and they haven't learned to swim, so menstruation PROBABLY isn't murder.
Oh, geeze...I hope menstruation isn't murder or I'm a serial killer!!!!
Well, it's a way of trivializing which is often a very difficult decision and going through, to put it mildly, a extremely unpleasant ordeal. IOW, it's them being the dicks they are.
Well, this god they worship certainly is. The vast majority of abortions are "spontaneous" or "natural" due to some serious embryonic defect. IOW, god's aborting defective conceptions.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
All those who think God is against abortion and it is a sin need to leave it up to God if he has his judgement day,
That applies to all unrepented thus unforgiven sins including lying, stealing, killing, coveting, cussing, having other gods or no God, abortion and acting on homosexual leanings, and more if unrepentant.
Some of those things don't affect other people so laws don't need to be made concerning them
Except for the homosexual leanings this pretty much describes our current President.
Would you bet on that?
Perhaps the grandiose bragging about crotch grabbing is subterfuge?
"The lady doth protest, too much, methinks..."
No wonder he has such a man crush on Putin and Steven Miller looks like an abused rent boy...
Still no power at home or at work. Brief break. Please behave and be polite on my seeds
Power was restored at work before I left. Still no power at home.
Power was restored at work before I left. Still no power at home.
Much as I loathe everything you stand for, I hope all's well now.
While we may not care much at all for what the other stands for, we are all Americans. Things are back to normal in Redding though there are outlying areas in the foothills around the city that won’t have power until Sunday or Monday. There is a good chance of snow ❄️ again late at night before it clears up and we get sunny 🌞 skies six of the next seven days.