Are there any facts to support such emotional hyperbole?
Going to be alot of these lil "not really a tax tax" in the future.
Democrats don't seem to have the ability to stand up and put their names to the major tax increases they want and likely require with their spending splurge. So as usual they pull this stuff.
See the tax isn't really a tax tax and besides its for your own good against the EVIL sugar people.
Same basic line they use against..rich people, oil companies, banks, car companies, the 'corporations'.. you name it.
No government is the most freedom but it is bad for everyone.
Therefore, freedom isn't everything.
Freedom is great because it normally helps everyone as a whole, but we should just be aware when it is harmful.
If you just believe in something like freedom to its extreme without any reason, then that would be emotional hyperbole if I ever did see one.
When Government dictates who you will buy cars from; you lose freedom of choice.
When Government dictates where you get your health insurance; you lose freedom of choice.
When Government dictates which industries will be the winners in this economy; you lose freedom of choice.
When Government dictates how much an employer can pay employees; you lose freedom of choice.
When Government decides to confiscate some of your wages to tre-distribute it to those they deem needier; you lose freedom of choice.
All of these acts, and many more Obama and the Liberal Democrats believe in lead to an erosion of your freedoms, your choices and eventually to mediocrity and lower standards of living.
This makes no sense whatever.
Who is claiming Freedom is "everything?" How can a concept be "everything?"
This is patently absurd; Freedom doesn't "help" anyone. Freedom has to be defined and the kind I am talking about is the freedom that allows people to HELP themselves by having the freedom to CHOOSE and do what makes them happy within certain legal limitations; punching me in the nose may make you happy, but it violates my rights.
When Government dictates who you will buy cars from; you lose freedom of choice.
When Government dictates where you get your health insurance; you lose freedom of choice.
When Government dictates which industries will be the winners in this economy; you lose freedom of choice.
When Government dictates how much an employer can pay employees; you lose freedom of choice.
When Government decides to confiscate some of your wages to tre-distribute it to those they deem needier; you lose freedom of choice.
All of these acts, and many more Obama and the Liberal Democrats believe in lead to an erosion of your freedoms, your choices and eventually to mediocrity and lower standards of living.
Emotional hyperbole would be an apt description of your arguments here.
What business is it of mine? The right as a consumer to know what is in the products I buy.
And that is not happening. I buy whatever car I want to.
Hasn't happened so you are just throwing another mantrum.
Hmmmm Bailouts happened under Bush, so this isn't a Dem trait.
And which REPUBLICAN or CONSERVATIVE president has abolished the min wage? Oh yeah, NONE, they ALL Republican/conservative/Dem/Liberal believe in the Min wage. Another mantrum from you.
Again, which president in the past 50 years has not done this?
And your final mantrum, you CONVENIENTLY forget to add that EVERY REPUBLICAN president has also supported it by not doing anything about it.
You are dismissed, continue with the mantrum if you'd like. :2wave:
Still waiting for you to actually show TRUTH instead of mantrums, hyperbole, and bile.
and the reason we don't have many of those (or shouldn't have them) is because they have bad outcomes for everyone, not because they would restrict freedom.
and you are missing the point, if a lack of freedom erodes our standard of living then that is bad, but you against all restriction of freedom even if they help everyone.
Think about why you support freedom and why you don't. It seems like your reasons don't have to do with freedom anyway.
Stealing money from someone restricts his freedom and helps him not. Therefore your argument that it helps everyone is obviously false.
Good lord, why do you feel compelled to act like a grade school child all the time?
NEWSFLASH for NextEra: Republicans aren't in charge anymore. :roll:
The sad thing is the precedent for this sort of nanny state control was set by so called sin taxes on tobbaco and alcohol. I've argued many times with anti-smoking zealots that their logic and justifications could easily be applied to unhealthy foods. They usually laughed it off or said it would never happen. I hope they enjoy the precedent they helped create.
Sometimes I hate to be right.
Stealing money from someone restricts his freedom and helps him not. Therefore your argument that it helps everyone is obviously false.
False, to regulate freedom away from someone just because it has no societal benefit is tyranny, if my personal choices are bad for me or my family, they are mine and mine alone to correct, not some idiot in Washington, or the state government, or a local council. Freedoms should only be restricted when they pose a clear, present, and imminent danger to those around, like say.........threatening someone with violence, or other abuses of the natural rights of man.So once again, unless freedom helps people overall (or in the future) then there is no reason to support it.
I don't know how you formed this opinion, but it is patently false. Freedom breeds innovation, it breeds knowledge, and wisdom. Don't misinterpret that to mean freedom needs to be justified however, because frankly if I want to do something that hurts no one else, then it is no one else's place to commentate, or ban that behavior.There is no exceptions to that rule, and I think absolutist thinking about freedom is harmful by not being focused on what helps people the most.
The sad thing is the precedent for this sort of nanny state control was set by so called sin taxes on tobbaco and alcohol. I've argued many times with anti-smoking zealots that their logic and justifications could easily be applied to unhealthy foods. They usually laughed it off or said it would never happen. I hope they enjoy the precedent they helped create.
Sometimes I hate to be right.
I'm all for a soda tax. bring it on.
False, to regulate freedom away from someone just because it has no societal benefit is tyranny, if my personal choices are bad for me or my family, they are mine and mine alone to correct, not some idiot in Washington, or the state government, or a local council. Freedoms should only be restricted when they pose a clear, present, and imminent danger to those around, like say.........threatening someone with violence, or other abuses of the natural rights of man.
I don't know how you formed this opinion, but it is patently false. Freedom breeds innovation, it breeds knowledge, and wisdom. Don't misinterpret that to mean freedom needs to be justified however, because frankly if I want to do something that hurts no one else, then it is no one else's place to commentate, or ban that behavior.
I am not claiming that if freedom doesn't help people, then that should be prevented. There is no reason to waste time preventing something if it doesn't harm others.
I am simply saying that if freedom HARMS most people overall then it should be prevented.
Sorry, I meant something that helps the most amount of people as possible overall. It is basically impossible for one action to help everyone individually the maxinum amount possible.
So once again, unless freedom helps people overall (or in the future) then there is no reason to support it.
There is no exceptions to that rule, and I think absolutist thinking about freedom is harmful by not being focused on what helps people the most.
It's not the government's job to "help" people.
It's not the government's job to "help" people.
It's even more not the government's job to "help" people using someone else's money.
If a citizen wants to help another, he can use his own money, or politely ask others to join him.
The purpose of freedom isn't to "help" people.
Freedom is it's own purpose.
Am I the ONLY person on this board that's seen "Singing in the Rain"?
Tell that to all the conservatives that support Drugs being illegal.
I think the goal of people should have is freedome AND happiness for the most amount of people as possible.
You just need to watch out if your own freedom doesn't reduce someone else's own freedome or happiness. thats all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?