1 - 10 Next
I meant: When that government action and policy are to protect our lives, property and freedom from those who'd harm us or our property, then it does more good than harm.
When that government action and policy are to protect our lives, property and freedom from those who'd harm us or our property, then it does more harm than good. All government action causes harm, simply because the force of guns are used (usually just the threat of them) to take the fruit of workers labor out of their mouths to pay for it.
McCullough should write without misleading. It's not judges that are executing fetuses, it's the mother who hires the abortionist to do it. And it's not children either.
It's not idiotic to fan the flames of war, if one is heavily invested in the military industrial complex that will be supplying the armies. And politicians and their staff will have the inside information to place profitable bets in the stock market to take advantage of it.
In response to:

Freedom with an Exception Clause

MoreFreedom Wrote: 3 hours ago (8:54 AM)
There's nothing like limiting the ability of a politician to spend money, to actually get them to do some work. Unfortuantly, that would be work pursuing their own interests, rather than protecting our life, property, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Taking our property is of more interest to them.
In response to:

Time Bombs in Democratic Coalition

MoreFreedom Wrote: Apr 18, 2014 12:42 PM
"The grand alliance of minority groups, young voters, public employee unions and women that propelled President Barack Obama to two comfortable victories may be fraying. " The young are being forced to support the older and the poor, via Obamacare. The unions are losing their cadillac insurance plans. Government union pensions are going broke, leaving retired government union workers with less. Women are being forced to pay for contraceptives and abortions they don't want and don't want to pay for. And minorities are finding they are getting screwed by government schools they have to pay for and they don't get a choice about it, for the benefit of the government school employee unions. Socialism always runs out of other peoples money. And now they are eating their own. The Democratic politicians can't sell more favors, without taking from their own to do it. And that doesn't sit well with a lot of them.
"you know, people began to rely on us, to look at us, you know, setting the values, setting the standard." Would those standards and values be lying to and misleading the public to sell them a bill of goods? Apparently so. And that includes the lies of "getting back to positive growth." But then perhaps she's just misleading the public again, and means positive growth of government power.
In response to:

Want to Abolish Abortion? Privatize It

MoreFreedom Wrote: Apr 18, 2014 12:26 PM
Hoffman misunderstands privatization. Government doesn't do abortions, private doctors do. Thus, it's already privitized. Hoffman wants to stop government funding and subsidization of abortions. And abolishing abortion won't be accomplished by stopping government funding of abortion. Rather than preaching to the choir, she should suggest that citizens shouldn't be forced to fund abortion. I.E., telling citizens that government will take your money to pay for abortions, even if you consider it murder. Wouldn't it be nice if government didn't have the power to take your money for purposes you consider immoral? However, that requires that both liberals and social conservatives agree that government shouldn't have this power, and instead be limited to protecting our liberty, rather than redistributing money. Taxpayer funding of abortion is redistributing money from producers to those getting subsidized abortions. Frankly, I don't think the social conservatives or liberals want to give up that power. The libertarians and independents would be happier though.
In that vein, I would suggest Republicans learn why independents and libertarians sometimes don't bother to vote for Republicans, rather than blaming those who didn't vote for Romney. And towards that end, I'd suggest conservative voters quit nominating and voting for Republicans who are for more government, but not quite as much additional government as the Democrats want. A simple litmus test: does the nominee's budget spend more next year than last? Every Republican since Regan has proposed more spending, and thus more government. Considering our nation did quite well from 1792, and yet the federal government consumed less than 3% of GDP (going up to 13% during the Civil War), while today they take over 22% of GDP, proposing anything close to that level of spending isn't conservative. http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/historical-burden-of-federal-spending.jpg Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative. It's no wonder libertarians, independents and many conservatives don't bother to show up and vote for them. They don't offer a fiscally conservative government, regardless of their lying rhetoric about cuts in spending that results in more spending). They can't even be honest about their planned increases in spending. Like Romney, who endorsed the Ryan budget that INCREASES spending by 3.5% each year. That's growing governemnt, faster than the private sector, and at the expense of our time to pay for it. That's lying to conservatives, to get elected.
Romney would have led to what Bush gave us: complete control of the government by Democrats after his term. Romney promised to increase government spending by 3.5% each year (per the Ryan budget plan, for which there was more spending Romney wanted to add). And unlike Obama, I'm sure Romney would have had a working Obamacare website. With RINOs like that, I'd just as soon have a Democrat get the blame, with the possibility of reforming the statist impulses of the Republican party, in the hopes the GOP establishment might endorse someone who supports more, rather than less, freedom.
1 - 10 Next