Can anybody help me in this debate with teo.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

You're the one that wanted to make this political.

It is political damaged eagle. It's not even logical for it not to be political so that's just a nonsensical statement.

But that has nothing to do with this dispute. All I ever did with this thread was try to make the argument that government is not ALWAYS something which offers no benefit to us. And then I asked teo if he felt so strongly about it does he even want to eliminate the federal mandate that people who do not have the money to pay for emergency room treatment will receive it.
But you kept saying that automatically means I'm arguing in support of obamacare. And I kept telling you I'm not a proponent of obamacare. And you ignored that and kept telling me I am.

As I said, you have the same mindset as markle, hannity and limbaugh.
Anyone who you disagree with on anything automatically becomes a liberal/progressive who wants government to have control over everything and who is automatically in favor of obamacare.

Yours and limbaugh's and hannity's view of the world is that there are only two ways to think.
1. Your way
2. the liberal/progressive (obama) way

You don't recognize that anything else exists.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

That's why you pay for crop and lifestock insurance and don't rely on a government subsidy.

Why don't you call subsidies exactly what they are? Bailouts! The government has been doing it for big businesses for years now with airlines, trains, farms, the car industry and more recently with the banks.

My farm is paid for with labor since I was a young un' and so is my son-in-laws. That's the life of small family farmers. Conservative farmers don't fail. They find jobs off the farm to make up the difference if need be.

Well on this point I have to admit you are consistent.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

You're the one that wanted to make this political.

It is political damaged eagle. It's not even logical for it not to be political so that's just a nonsensical statement.

But that has nothing to do with this dispute. All I ever did with this thread was try to make the argument that government is not ALWAYS something which offers no benefit to us. And then I asked teo if he felt so strongly about it does he even want to eliminate the federal mandate that people who do not have the money to pay for emergency room treatment will receive it.
But you kept saying that automatically means I'm arguing in support of obamacare. And I kept telling you I'm not a proponent of obamacare. And you ignored that and kept telling me I am.

As I said, you have the same mindset as markle, hannity and limbaugh.
Anyone who you disagree with on anything automatically becomes a liberal/progressive who wants government to have control over everything and who is automatically in favor of obamacare.

Yours and limbaugh's and hannity's view of the world is that there are only two ways to think.
1. Your way
2. the liberal/progressive way

You don't recognize that anything else exists.

I feel the same way about how you approached the subject.

If you're going to put me on the spot about letting people die in the ER parking lot my answer will always be that there are charities that attempt to ensure that doesn't happen.

Perhaps it would be better to ask where government responsibility ends and personal responsibility begins?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB6fCuxGvAw

Damaged Eagle wrote:

I feel the same way about how you approached the subject.

Perhaps it would be better to ask where government responsibility ends and personal responsibility begins?

I agree. That is EXACTLY how I approached it. I approached it that way with the post that started the thread...

"Teo like so many these days doesn't believe anything government does when it takes money from some to use it to help others is justified.
Can anyone give us any example of how that's not ALWAYS a valid argument?"

And in the second post I gave what in my opinion is an example.

In your mind, that automatically made me a "liberal/progressive" who is in favor of obamacare.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

That's why you pay for crop and lifestock insurance and don't rely on a government subsidy.

Why don't you call subsidies exactly what they are? Bailouts! The government has been doing it for big businesses for years now with airlines, trains, farms, the car industry and more recently with the banks.

My farm is paid for with labor since I was a young un' and so is my son-in-laws. That's the life of small family farmers. Conservative farmers don't fail. They find jobs off the farm to make up the difference if need be.

Well on this point I have to admit you are consistent.

What makes you think that small businesses have the resourses, hired knowledge, or political connections, to recieve all the possible subidies and government handouts made available to the big corporations by our government?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

You don't listen to Sean Hannity so let me educate you about what I despise about him on radio.

Every once in a while (not often) the call screener will take a call from someone who wants to disagree with something Hannity has said. And every single time this happens this is how that call goes...

HANNITY: "Folks, we have a liberal on the phone. Okay Mr. Liberal what liberal stuff are you going to say?".

Anyone who listens regularly will imediately relate to that. It's not an exaggeration, that is literally what we hear.
Markle does exactly the same thing in most all his posts here. And in this thread you have done it too.
In Hannity's case his obsession with that label accomplishes nothing except him telling his audience exactly what it wants to hear and that puts tens of millions of dollars in his bank account.
But you and markle don't even have that benefit. When you obsess on those labels it accomplishes nothing period.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

What makes you think that small businesses have the resourses, hired knowledge, or political connections, to recieve all the possible subidies and government handouts made available to the big corporations by our government?

I don't think that. I just asked you a question. Then you answered it. And I accepted your answer (that's why I said you're consistent with this).

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

I feel the same way about how you approached the subject.

Perhaps it would be better to ask where government responsibility ends and personal responsibility begins?

I agree. That is EXACTLY how I approached it. I approached it that way with the post that started the thread...

"Teo like so many these days doesn't believe anything government does when it takes money from some to use it to help others is justified.
Can anyone give us any example of how that's not ALWAYS a valid argument?"

And in the second post I gave what in my opinion is an example.

In your mind, that automatically made me a "liberal/progressive" who is in favor of obamacare.

Where does it state in the Declaration Of Independence that the government will do anything more for an individual than guarantee them 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

What makes you think that small businesses have the resourses, hired knowledge, or political connections, to recieve all the possible subidies and government handouts made available to the big corporations by our government?

I don't think that. I just asked you a question. Then you answered it. And I accepted your answer (that's why I said you're consistent with this).

The question was rhetorical in nature. You don't have to answer it but you can think about it if you so desire...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

Bob wrote:You don't listen to Sean Hannity so let me educate you about what I despise about him on radio.

Every once in a while (not often) the call screener will take a call from someone who wants to disagree with something Hannity has said. And every single time this happens this is how that call goes...

HANNITY: "Folks, we have a liberal on the phone. Okay Mr. Liberal what liberal stuff are you going to say?".

Anyone who listens regularly will imediately relate to that. It's not an exaggeration, that is literally what we hear.
Markle does exactly the same thing in most all his posts here. And in this thread you have done it too.
In Hannity's case his obsession with that label accomplishes nothing except him telling his audience exactly what it wants to hear and that puts tens of millions of dollars in his bank account.
But you and markle don't even have that benefit. When you obsess on those labels it accomplishes nothing period.

No obsessing about it.

I call people supposedly enlightened progressive liberals quite intentionally when I feel someone with a liberal leaning isn't willing to discuss the issue at hand...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrd2xf5DIlU



...Want to talk about some other social issues like gay marriage or illegal foreign nationals?

Damaged Eagle wrote:[

Where does it state in the Constitution that the government will do anything more for an individual than guarantee them 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?

The Constitution was written over two centuries ago. Part of the brilliance of it's authors is that they realized there would need to be an arbiter to apply the Constitution to totally unforeseeable (at the time) future disputes as to how the language of the Constitution is to be defined.
They were so aware of this that they conceived one of the three fundamental branches of government to provide that role.
They knew that what constitutes "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (in their Declaration of Independence) would also need to be defined in the context of future events and circumstances.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can take many forms. We all don't agree on what that is. We didn't always agree in the past (slavery as just one example) and we don't always agree now (abortion as just one example) and we won't always agree in the future (medical advances and other technological advances which involve issues of morality as just one example).
I don't know how better to respond to your question.

Now I've got to get some sleep. But by all means let's continue this tomorrow.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:[

Where does it state in the Constitution that the government will do anything more for an individual than guarantee them 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?

The Constitution was written over two centuries ago. Part of the brilliance of it's authors is that they realized there would need to be an arbiter to apply the Constitution to totally unforeseeable (at the time) future disputes as to how the language of the Constitution is to be defined.
They were so aware of this that they conceived one of the three fundamental branches of government to provide that role.
They knew that what constitutes "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (in their Declaration of Independence) would also need to be defined in the context of future events and circumstances.
"The pursuit of happiness" can take many forms. We all don't agree on what that is. We didn't always agree in the past (slavery as just one example) and we don't always agree now (abortion as just one example) and we won't always agree in the future (medical advances and other technological advances which involve issues of morality as just one example).
I don't know how better to respond to your question.

Now I've got to get some sleep. But by all means let's continue this tomorrow.

Are we legislating for morality and/or ethics, or more ways to get money out of the government and/or people?

It seems to me that the latter has become more prevalent than the former.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB6fCuxGvAw

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Are we legislating for morality and/or ethics, or more ways to get money out of the government and/or people?

It seems to me that the latter has become more prevalent than the former.

There's no question about it. Federal government borrowing and spending is utterly out of control.
It's out of control with "entitlements" (handouts) and it's out of control in all other ways.

Another way it's out of control is with that so-called "national defense" which you believe is the only role of federal government.
For example, our own congressman in the district we live in here has only one job description. And that's to get "money out of the government" (as you put it) in the form of military appropriations. Our local economy is dependent on that for it's survival

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Are we legislating for morality and/or ethics, or more ways to get money out of the government and/or people?

It seems to me that the latter has become more prevalent than the former.

There's no question about it. Federal government borrowing and spending is utterly out of control.
It's out of control with "entitlements" (handouts) and it's out of control in all other ways.

Another way it's out of control is with that so-called "national defense" which you believe is the only role of federal government.
For example, our own congressman in the district we live in here has only one job description. And that's to get "money out of the government" (as you put it) in the form of military appropriations. Our local economy is dependent on that for it's survival

I can't argue about the out of control spending since I agree with you on that point.

However I will point out that perhaps you should look to see what percentage of the federal budget has been apportioned to the military as compared to other spending over the decades before taking it out on the military. I might agree that there are cuts that can be made to the miltary but one should be careful as to what they want to cut.

Local economies always thrive when there is a military base nearby.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB6fCuxGvAw