...what can't they do?

This is as well put as I have heard;

Breitbart.tv » Congressman at Town Hall: ‘The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country’ (http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-at-town-hall-the-federal-government-can-do-most-anything-in-this-country/)

...what can't they do?

This is as well put as I have heard;

Breitbart.tv » Congressman at Town Hall: ‘The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country’ (http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-at-town-hall-the-federal-government-can-do-most-anything-in-this-country/)


Yup... he said it.

Its a very unfortunate truth

Yup... he said it.

Its a very unfortunate truth

I just think it is worth noting how well she put the question.

Democrats say "We're not socialists and the GOP did it, too!"

If unlimited government is OK, then we ought to come to terms with that and just do away with all this lip service that it is not. If it is limited, shouldn't we agree on what and where they are?

If health care is a RIGHT, such as life and liberty and pursuit of happiness, free speech, etc, then we are, in fact, saying that someone MUST give it to use.

Is it a right to have a home loan? Apparently.

Is it a right to have a check from the government when I don't have a job?

Is it a right to have my retirement paid for?

If it is, then, no one can take it from me, it MUST be provided.

It is, obviously, not a right and once we come to grips with that, then we can come up with good governance as to what to do with our very real problems.

I just think it is worth noting how well she put the question.

Democrats say "We're not socialists and the GOP did it, too!"

If unlimited government is OK, then we ought to come to terms with that and just do away with all this lip service that it is not. If it is limited, shouldn't we agree on what and where they are?

If health care is a RIGHT, such as life and liberty and pursuit of happiness, free speech, etc, then we are, in fact, saying that someone MUST give it to use.

Is it a right to have a home loan? Apparently.

Is it a right to have a check from the government when I don't have a job?

Is it a right to have my retirement paid for?

If it is, then, no one can take it from me, it MUST be provided.

It is, obviously, not a right and once we come to grips with that, then we can come up with good governance as to what to do with our very real problems.


I swear to God. I am writing your name in next time for whatever the highest office being contested is.

I swear to God. I am writing your name in next time for whatever the highest office being contested is.

How about that lady? She said it, not me.

:buddies:

I just think it is worth noting how well she put the question.

Democrats say "We're not socialists and the GOP did it, too!"

If unlimited government is OK, then we ought to come to terms with that and just do away with all this lip service that it is not. If it is limited, shouldn't we agree on what and where they are?

If health care is a RIGHT, such as life and liberty and pursuit of happiness, free speech, etc, then we are, in fact, saying that someone MUST give it to use.

Is it a right to have a home loan? Apparently.

Is it a right to have a check from the government when I don't have a job?

Is it a right to have my retirement paid for?

If it is, then, no one can take it from me, it MUST be provided.

It is, obviously, not a right and once we come to grips with that, then we can come up with good governance as to what to do with our very real problems.

Larry these people aren't worried about rights, they are worried about power.

They will step all over your right for their power.

Entitlements get them elected, Once elected they give more entitlements to stay in office.

Steny Hoyer has been unbeatable in St. Mary's County for years just because so many people think that he keeps the base here. That's entitlement thinking, and half the County is guilty.

They may piss and moan about a Health care bill, about a new tax, but as long as they think their Base entitlement is there they will vote for the sorry excuseof a representative we have in Steny Hoyer.

This country is no longer worried about rights, but entitlements, and it is dragging us down. They take away our rights and keep the entitlements going and they stay in office.

You can say that in a nicer way, but thats the fact.

I just think it is worth noting how well she put the question.

Duly noted. She was GOOD. I liked her.

Democrats say "We're not socialists and the GOP did it, too!"

If unlimited government is OK, then we ought to come to terms with that and just do away with all this lip service that it is not. If it is limited, shouldn't we agree on what and where they are?

If health care is a RIGHT, such as life and liberty and pursuit of happiness, free speech, etc, then we are, in fact, saying that someone MUST give it to use.

Is it a right to have a home loan? Apparently.

Is it a right to have a check from the government when I don't have a job?

Is it a right to have my retirement paid for?

If it is, then, no one can take it from me, it MUST be provided.

It is, obviously, not a right and once we come to grips with that, then we can come up with good governance as to what to do with our very real problems.

OK Larry, maybe we do agree on politics :wink:

I think health care being a "right" is a buncha :bs:

Hell, I think a lot of the shyt the Big Government guys are trying to do/have gotten to be passed is a buncha :bs:

I think health care being a "right" is a buncha :bs:

Hell, I think a lot of the shyt the Big Government guys are trying to do/have gotten to be passed is a buncha :bs:

I was having a conversation with a pal and they were saying how "Atlas Shrugged" was pretty much where we are today. Not having read that but, getting the gist, I felt that 1984 was more apt.

I mean, health care as a 'right'. War is peace. It is critical to today's government, R' and D's, that the meaning of words either be changed or, at the very least, not discussed. As this lady so well put, if health care is a right, if I MUST have it and can't give it to myself, then someone else MUST give it to me. If that can be compelled, what can't?

I was having a conversation with a pal and they were saying how "Atlas Shrugged" was pretty much where we are today. Not having read that but, getting the gist, I felt that 1984 was more apt.

I mean, health care as a 'right'. War is peace. It is critical to today's government, R' and D's, that the meaning of words either be changed or, at the very least, not discussed. As this lady so well put, if health care is a right, if I MUST have it and can't give it to myself, then someone else MUST give it to me. If that can be compelled, what can't?

More for literary reasons---Just to compare:

1984 dealt with a totalitarian socialist government that was thriving (or at least the book didn't indicate things like the economy or crime were are problem). Theme of the book was the loss of individual freedom due to a big brother state.

Atlas Shrugged dealt with a so called capitialistic country that was actually a socialist country and was anything but thriving as the economy consistently reached new lows. Theme of the book was how socialism brings out the worst in people and makes them not want to work and instead be leechers.

Health Care is goods and services, you have no more right to it than any other goods and services.

Because, someone else has to provide the goods and perform the service for you, if you don't pay for it yourself.

Free speech, you don't have to force someone to provide you free speech.
Bear Arms, some bears had to die for you to have them, oh wait, no one provides me a firearm, I have the right to buy and keep one if I want.
Safe in home and possesion, what do you have to take away from someone else to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures?

I agree, you defenitely have the right to purchase/trade/barter for any goods or services you want, unless it harms others to do so. And in that aspect, the government is denying you your right to purchase/trade/barter for health care goods and services. You will be provided or allowed to pay for the goods and services the government chooses, NOT what you choose. Yes, the plan might NOT start out that way for everyone, but the risk is extremely high it will go the way of the other socialized medicines of other nations, and you will be forced to abide by what the government provides or chooses for you.

I just think it is worth noting how well she put the question.

Democrats say "We're not socialists and the GOP did it, too!"

If unlimited government is OK, then we ought to come to terms with that and just do away with all this lip service that it is not. If it is limited, shouldn't we agree on what and where they are?

If health care is a RIGHT, such as life and liberty and pursuit of happiness, free speech, etc, then we are, in fact, saying that someone MUST give it to use.

Is it a right to have a home loan? Apparently.

Is it a right to have a check from the government when I don't have a job?

Is it a right to have my retirement paid for?

If it is, then, no one can take it from me, it MUST be provided.

It is, obviously, not a right and once we come to grips with that, then we can come up with good governance as to what to do with our very real problems.Health care IS a right, damnit! However, that does not mean it must be provided to you. I have damned good health care, as is my right. My neighbor has no health care - that is equally their right. I pay for mine, because it is my health care provider's right to charge me, and my right to choose to pay that charge or not. None of these things fall outside of any of our rights.

Rights do not need to be provided - those are entitlements. No one forces you to talk in public as your right to free speech. No one provides you with a handgun as your right to bear arms. No one forces you to go to church, read a newspaper, not talk with government officials without being mirandized, etc., etc.

Something being a right does NOT mean it must be provided. It means you have the ability to pursue it - the government can not specifically deny it from you.

Health care, like lack of health care, is a right.

...what can't they do?

This is as well put as I have heard;

Breitbart.tv » Congressman at Town Hall: ‘The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country’ (http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-at-town-hall-the-federal-government-can-do-most-anything-in-this-country/)

given Breitbarts track record, why do you still carry water for this guy ???

given Breitbarts track record, why do you still carry water for this guy ???

:confused:

Are you referring to the racist that he called out as a racist?

Or, are you suggesting this video was somehow doctored? Please elaborate.

given Breitbarts track record, why do you still carry water for this guy ???

So you have nothing to say about what the woman said to Rep Stark? Pretty shallow and cheap shot at Breitbart who was just posting what someone else said.

...what can't they do?

This is as well put as I have heard;

Breitbart.tv » Congressman at Town Hall: ‘The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country’ (http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-at-town-hall-the-federal-government-can-do-most-anything-in-this-country/)

Larry! Lar-meister! Larry Larry Lollipop, Larrypalooza,

Of course the Federal Government can do most anything it wants. That's not a new thing.

Something being a right does NOT mean it must be provided. It means you have the ability to pursue it - the government can not specifically deny it from you.

Health care, like lack of health care, is a right.I agree with you. Health care is a right. What really makes this a problem is the individual mandate. That is the point where the game changes, where the government is saying you must have this service - and, eventually, they will likely be the ones providing it as well.

Of course the Federal Government can do most anything it wants. That's not a new thing.
Perhaps its a matter of perspective. But this is a relatively new thing. With very rare exception, Federalism was respected, yes things started to slide downhill with FDR, but its only been the last few decades that we've seen abuse of the interstate commerce clause to usurp powers NOT granted to the federal government. The Health Care Law has turned a new corner, where the first time the federal government is forcing citizens to purchase or participate unconditionally. Sure point out state laws about auto insurance, its conditional, no one forces you to buy auto insurance, but if you want to drive on public roads you have to purchase insurance, its conditional on that. Health Insurance no choice, you have to purchase it.

I find it surprising anyone could treat it so nonchalant about such a serious subject, and the ramifications of elected officials that no longer respect federalism in a situation where federalism has been eroded year after year.

Larry! Lar-meister! Larry Larry Lollipop, Larrypalooza,

Of course the Federal Government can do most anything it wants. That's not a new thing.

This current and most arrogant congress and president have proven that.

I was having a conversation with a pal and they were saying how "Atlas Shrugged" was pretty much where we are today. Not having read that but, getting the gist, I felt that 1984 was more apt.

I mean, health care as a 'right'. War is peace. It is critical to today's government, R' and D's, that the meaning of words either be changed or, at the very least, not discussed. As this lady so well put, if health care is a right, if I MUST have it and can't give it to myself, then someone else MUST give it to me. If that can be compelled, what can't?

No Larry, I've read both and "Atlas Shrugged" mirrors where we are and where we are going to such a degree it is frightening. The looters are definetly in control and blindly destroying our society for their cause of 'Social Justice'. Unfortunately, I don't see any of the likes of the Hank Reardon's or John Galt's of corporate America standing up against the looters, instead we have a bunch of corroborators who think that being PC and cowtowing to the looters will prolong their survival in the business world. They have sold their souls to the looters for 50 pieces of silver.

Concur. Funny, I have never read Atlas shrugged, just finished the Wiki on it, and it apparently ties in pretty well with two posts I had made in the last ten minutes before reading the wiki:)

No Larry, I've read both and "Atlas Shrugged" mirrors where we are and where we are going to such a degree it is frightening. The looters are definetly in control and blindly destroying our society for their cause of 'Social Justice'. Unfortunately, I don't see any of the likes of the Hank Reardon's or John Galt's of corporate America standing up against the looters, instead we have a bunch of corroborators who think that being PC and cowtowing to the looters will prolong their survival in the business world. They have sold their souls to the looters for 50 pieces of silver.

I would contend that their intentions are hardly "blind". They know exactly what they are doing and don't care whether Americans disagree with it or not. Stark epitomizes this with is smug and disdainful attitude toward his own constituents.