48% See Government Today As A Threat to Individual Rights

[rattsass]

Well, now that is a defeatist attitude.

How does our government run without funding? Ever heard of "no taxation without representation"? Defeatist attitude indeed.

[Ursa Majoris]

And why is that? Could it possibly be that they can't save what the government takes, that they face less in wages because the corporation has money going to your social programs via taxes that might other wise go to the employees in a profit sharing program? Could it be that regulation based on determining a specific outcome rather than public safety is driving up the cost of the goods that they would buy? Could it be because they spend foolishly knowing that the government teat is there should they fall?

Maybe it's because of the increasingly unequal way the national wealth is divided, the constant downward pressure on pay and employment in the name of corporate profit - that absolutely MUST increase quarterly to please a troop of performing baboons on Wall Street - or the pack of lies we are being fed about the inflation rate.

 

As for your last point, are you serious? The government teat? Who the hell wants to fall back on the government teat and try to make ends meet on an income of next to zero, declining to actual zero after xx weeks? People are TERRIFIED of losing their jobs.

[mrip]

As for your last point, are you serious? The government teat? Who the hell wants to fall back on the government teat and try to make ends meet on an income of next to zero, declining to actual zero after xx weeks? People are TERRIFIED of losing their jobs.

 

He might mean corporations. I did some contract work for one of the banks that received a huge bailout. The general idea was, we don't really need that much money but it's our job to convince them to give as much as possible. As in, lets suck on this huge freakin teat that's just sitting here even though we're already pretty full and sitting next to 15 starving people.

[Big John]

 

It just keeps getting worse, as we are deep down the slippery slope. The main differences between the parties are the approaches and messages. Reps claim it is necessary for safety and security or for "morality" a codeword of imposing their religious beliefs and dogmas onto others,while Dems claim they are the championships of personal liberty, but actions prove otherwise where more rules and regulations are added and they prolong the Patriot Act. Both chip away at liberties in different areas hoping we don't notice.

 

Yes, we need 3rd parties and true independents to help reverse this trend.

 

For the poll, a lot of people aren't seeing it or just seeing a certain aspect of it without seeing the big picture of big government.

 

[Perchoutofwater]

Not on Az's sliding scale. Just a person who understands that society is essential and I don't want to live in a house with no roof.

 

On that sliding scale you are definitely closer to Marx than you are to Jefferson.

[WaterMan]

Maybe it's because of the increasingly unequal way the national wealth is divided, the constant downward pressure on pay and employment in the name of corporate profit - that absolutely MUST increase quarterly to please a troop of performing baboons on Wall Street - or the pack of lies we are being fed about the inflation rate.

 

As for your last point, are you serious? The government teat? Who the hell wants to fall back on the government teat and try to make ends meet on an income of next to zero, declining to actual zero after xx weeks? People are TERRIFIED of losing their jobs.

 

Haven't you heard? After the "Greatest Generation" we are all just free loaders living off the government. If only we could go back to dem good ol days. If anyone is losing their jobs it's because they didn't work hard enough to please Wall Street.

Edited June 26, 2010 by WaterMan

[Ursa Majoris]

On that sliding scale you are definitely closer to Marx than you are to Jefferson.

Jefferson didn't have a roof?

 

ETA: And your idea of Marxism betrays an inability to be rational and objective.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Savage Beatings]

Perhaps, but in my opinion it's pretty clear that the US government has set things up so that a successful violent revolution simply isn't possible.

 

What if half (or more) of the military sided with the revolt?

[Ursa Majoris]

What if half (or more) of the military sided with the revolt?

That is called treason and also reduces us to the level of a South American or African banana republic. I can't believe you people even discuss this nonsense.

[WaterMan]

Half of the military usually sides with whoever the current President is.

[Savage Beatings]

That is called treason and also reduces us to the level of a South American or African banana republic. I can't believe you people even discuss this nonsense.

 

Well of course its treason.

 

I'm not suggesting it can or should happen... the point was made that the U.S. has positioned itself so that an armed revolution is now and forever impossible. I'm merely speculating that it would not necessarily be impossible for a U.S. armed revolution to occur if in fact some of the military joined with the peasants and their pitchforks.

[Jimmy Neutron]

When the country was formed a group of armed and trained civilians could conceivably stand up to a government army. Today, civilians would stand no chance. Like 0.00%.

 

That is ridiculous - our all-powerful military has been unable to squash a few thousand underarmed rebels in an area the size of California. Our military is great at whipping conventional mechanized forces, that's what it was designed to do. We've had little real success in military conflict over the last 40 years because we prepare and train for WWIII and end up fighting very small groups that use primitive and/or unconventional methods. That's kinda how we became a country in the first place, remember?

[dmarc117]

you know, if you want to keep beating that drum, why don't you look in the mirror. when is the last time you complained about rendition, gitmo/bagram, habeas corpus? november 3, 2008?

 

an honest lefty breaks it down

 

 

oh snap!!!!!

[dmarc117]

so let me get this straight.........

 

possibly losing some 'freedom' because some yahoos want to blow up our cities is bad. but losing some 'freedoms' because some yahoos blew up our financial and housing markets is ok?

 

gotcha

[Avernus]

oh snap!!!!!

 

don't know how I overlooked that gfddghghfgjvjg

[bpwallace49]

Amazingly, I am going to agree with you in a roundabout way. The right wing is trying to steal the ideology of the libertarians and "tea partiers" in concern to personal freedoms and Constitutional doctrine. This, after they shoo'ed it away like Obama shoo's flies during the last elections. The GOP were all dumping on Ron Paul and his nutty thought process back then. Now they see the movement gaining momentum and they are falling all over themselves to champion "rights issues" as though they invented it. Lots of posturing on the right in this issue right now. I think voters should take a good look at where some of these alleged "freedom fighters" stood on the civil liberties issues 3-4 years ago before buying in with their vote.

 

This is your best post in weeks.

[bpwallace49]

And why is that? Could it possibly be that they can't save what the government takes, that they face less in wages because the corporation has money going to your social programs via taxes that might other wise go to the employees in a profit sharing program? Could it be that regulation based on determining a specific outcome rather than public safety is driving up the cost of the goods that they would buy? Could it be because they spend foolishly knowing that the government teat is there should they fall?

 

Or could it be that Americans are too used to eternal, endless prosperity and have built our economy on OVERconsumption? You make the spurious argument that people would save more if they had lower taxes rather than increasing their spending. That is complete and utter hogwash.

 

Considering that a lot of food goods have direct subsidies from gubmnet that keeps the prices of goods low for all of society, I doubt that the FDA is "driving up" the costs of goods through regulation so we dont die of disease . . . .

[Avernus]

Or could it be that Americans are too used to eternal, endless prosperity and have built our economy on OVERconsumption? You make the spurious argument that people would save more if they had lower taxes rather than increasing their spending. That is complete and utter hogwash.

 

Considering that a lot of food goods have direct subsidies from gubmnet that keeps the prices of goods low for all of society, I doubt that the FDA is "driving up" the costs of goods through regulation so we dont die of disease . . . .

 

 

while people are actually saving more now than they have in awhile....there is still way more spending than needs to be done...

 

there are far too many people living beyond their means, spending money they don't have for things they don't need....

 

children of the future need a class that covers "what you need and don't need out of life"...but this will never happen because "we need to stimulate the economy"....that's why you're lucky to see a TV that lasts more than 5-7 years anymore rather than lasting 15-20 or more years....and that's just one small example...