Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually, the basis premise of the title should be self evident and totally logical once one examines socialism honestly.

Every time socialism is attempted it involves the heavy hands of government. It can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom. Hence socialism is slavery.

---

Trump's rule can only happen with a lot of executive power, and every failure will result in corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.
I believe the Trump administration is corrupt, and concentrating more authority in the executive branch only increases the potential for abuses of power rather than protecting the liberties of the American people.

---

The problem is your point is easily defeated when we ask you whether or not you support health care fully controlled by the government or if you supported Roe. The reason you radical leftists constantly are exposed as hypocrites is that you do not believe what you type: you have no problem with government control you just have a problem with which government is controlling.

---

insurance companies are making a killing off the government. We need to get personal insurance out of the marketplace. Businesses don't want to be messing with insurance.

---

Obama's legacy.

What is the average net income margin of insurance companies?

(Yes I know facts are your Kryptonite)

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually, the basis premise of the title should be self evident and totally logical once one examines socialism honestly.

Every time socialism is attempted it involves the heavy hands of government. It can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom. Hence socialism is slavery.

---

Trump's rule can only happen with a lot of executive power, and every failure will result in corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.
I believe the Trump administration is corrupt, and concentrating more authority in the executive branch only increases the potential for abuses of power rather than protecting the liberties of the American people.

---

The problem is your point is easily defeated when we ask you whether or not you support health care fully controlled by the government or if you supported Roe. The reason you radical leftists constantly are exposed as hypocrites is that you do not believe what you type: you have no problem with government control you just have a problem with which government is controlling.

---

insurance companies are making a killing off the government. We need to get personal insurance out of the marketplace. Businesses don't want to be messing with insurance.

---

You're problem is that you're a moron and you're too stupid to realize it. The discussion is not about insurance or Medicare. The discussion is you post:
The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.

Then you argue that the government should assume more power. Are you actually this stupid? Seriously - how do you function in daily life being this big or a moron? It's not a value judgment on your position it's observing what a moron argues against himself and does not realize it. When I wonder how leftists can act so idiotically, I read your posts and you make it clear why.

---

I wassgovt healthcare for the opp

you're confusing disagreement with contradiction. Arguing for a government with enough authority to perform its legitimate functions is not the same thing as arguing for unlimited government power. The real issue is where the limits are and who enforces them.
Calling someone a "moron" doesn't establish your argument; it simply substitutes an insult for one. If you believe government power necessarily destroys freedom, then make that case. Explain which power you oppose, why it is illegitimate, and what constitutional limit should apply.
Ironically, your argument is the one that collapses under its own weight: you condemn government power in the abstract while relying on government to protect the very rights and freedoms you claim to value. The question isn't whether government has power. It's whether that power is limited, accountable, constitutional, and directed toward protecting individual liberty.
That's a substantive argument. "You're stupid" isn't.

Most of the problems with American health care today is because the govt is far too entrenched and has too much control. This began long before Obama but he made it much worse.

As with everything, government does not create wealth, efficiency, or better outcomes. The mist govt can do is remove restraints do that individuals can accomplish those goals. Instead we got a bunch of lies, a huge bureaucracy, much greater costs, less freedom, and worse results. All of this was predicted because it's inevitable.

Do what do the fascists and commies (there's not much difference between them) want to do now to clean up the mess they created? They want more of the same insanity which would only increase the disaster. They keep telling us this and have said so for a decade (Obama liked to talk about his goal of "single payer" which is code for socialized medicine). We know where this leads because Canada and Europe are showing the way: long waits for needed surgeries and other procedures and a corrupt govt pushing "suicide" as a solution to treatable problems as the cheap and easy answer. It's morbid, ghoulish, and evil.

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually, the basis premise of the title should be self evident and totally logical once one examines socialism honestly.

Every time socialism is attempted it involves the heavy hands of government. It can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom. Hence socialism is slavery.

---

Trump's rule can only happen with a lot of executive power, and every failure will result in corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.
I believe the Trump administration is corrupt, and concentrating more authority in the executive branch only increases the potential for abuses of power rather than protecting the liberties of the American people.

---

The problem is your point is easily defeated when we ask you whether or not you support health care fully controlled by the government or if you supported Roe. The reason you radical leftists constantly are exposed as hypocrites is that you do not believe what you type: you have no problem with government control you just have a problem with which government is controlling.

---

insurance companies are making a killing off the government. We need to get personal insurance out of the marketplace. Businesses don't want to be messing with insurance.

---

You're problem is that you're a moron and you're too stupid to realize it. The discussion is not about insurance or Medicare. The discussion is you post:
The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.

Then you argue that the government should assume more power. Are you actually this stupid? Seriously - how do you function in daily life being this big or a moron? It's not a value judgment on your position it's observing what a moron argues against himself and does not realize it. When I wonder how leftists can act so idiotically, I read your posts and you make it clear why.

---

I wassgovt healthcare for the opp

you're confusing disagreement with contradiction. Arguing for a government with enough authority to perform its legitimate functions is not the same thing as arguing for unlimited government power. The real issue is where the limits are and who enforces them.
Calling someone a "moron" doesn't establish your argument; it simply substitutes an insult for one. If you believe government power necessarily destroys freedom, then make that case. Explain which power you oppose, why it is illegitimate, and what constitutional limit should apply.
Ironically, your argument is the one that collapses under its own weight: you condemn government power in the abstract while relying on government to protect the very rights and freedoms you claim to value. The question isn't whether government has power. It's whether that power is limited, accountable, constitutional, and directed toward protecting individual liberty.
That's a substantive argument. "You're stupid" isn't.

---

I do apologize. Sorry for calling you names - I am sorry.

That being said, I genuinely do not understand how you can with a straight face claim you want limited government with limited power but you want to turn the health care system over to it. Surely, there is some planet where even you can see how that makes zero sense.

I suspect it is exactly what was stated in your "I am a classical liberal" thread - you like the idea of wearing the "limited government" T-shirt, but you really do not want limited government.

Not that anyone cares but I am interested in communication and language especially as it is divisively used in politics. I think that is one reason we have trouble having productive conversations because there is tension between reality and a dream world.

Maybe the best example of this is the asinine "my body, my choice" deployed to support abortion but probably 99% of those people support vaccine mandates. Now pay careful attention here because this is where you will get tripped up and confused:
- Those two positions are not inherently contradictory, that is not the point
- The point is the use of the cutsie phrase "my body, my choice" - most who deploy that phrase really just mean they're pro-abortion but the silly phrase - which they actually do not believe - makes a better t-shirt
- So when you take them at face value you quickly become confused, like when someone claims to want "limited government power" supports turning over 1/2 the economy to the government

What I cannot figure out - and sometimes makes me unfortunately name call out of frustration - is why you just cannot be intellectually honest and consistent - just say you support big government and more government control. That's a perfectly fine position, which is odd you will not own what you so clearly support.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually, the basis premise of the title should be self evident and totally logical once one examines socialism honestly.

Every time socialism is attempted it involves the heavy hands of government. It can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom. Hence socialism is slavery.

---

Trump's rule can only happen with a lot of executive power, and every failure will result in corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.
I believe the Trump administration is corrupt, and concentrating more authority in the executive branch only increases the potential for abuses of power rather than protecting the liberties of the American people.

---

The problem is your point is easily defeated when we ask you whether or not you support health care fully controlled by the government or if you supported Roe. The reason you radical leftists constantly are exposed as hypocrites is that you do not believe what you type: you have no problem with government control you just have a problem with which government is controlling.

---

insurance companies are making a killing off the government. We need to get personal insurance out of the marketplace. Businesses don't want to be messing with insurance.

---

You're problem is that you're a moron and you're too stupid to realize it. The discussion is not about insurance or Medicare. The discussion is you post:
The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.

Then you argue that the government should assume more power. Are you actually this stupid? Seriously - how do you function in daily life being this big or a moron? It's not a value judgment on your position it's observing what a moron argues against himself and does not realize it. When I wonder how leftists can act so idiotically, I read your posts and you make it clear why.

---

I wassgovt healthcare for the opp

you're confusing disagreement with contradiction. Arguing for a government with enough authority to perform its legitimate functions is not the same thing as arguing for unlimited government power. The real issue is where the limits are and who enforces them.
Calling someone a "moron" doesn't establish your argument; it simply substitutes an insult for one. If you believe government power necessarily destroys freedom, then make that case. Explain which power you oppose, why it is illegitimate, and what constitutional limit should apply.
Ironically, your argument is the one that collapses under its own weight: you condemn government power in the abstract while relying on government to protect the very rights and freedoms you claim to value. The question isn't whether government has power. It's whether that power is limited, accountable, constitutional, and directed toward protecting individual liberty.
That's a substantive argument. "You're stupid" isn't.

---

I do apologize. Sorry for calling you names - I am sorry.

That being said, I genuinely do not understand how you can with a straight face claim you want limited government with limited power but you want to turn the health care system over to it. Surely, there is some planet where even you can see how that makes zero sense.

I suspect it is exactly what was stated in your "I am a classical liberal" thread - you like the idea of wearing the "limited government" T-shirt, but you really do not want limited government.

Not that anyone cares but I am interested in communication and language especially as it is divisively used in politics. I think that is one reason we have trouble having productive conversations because there is tension between reality and a dream world.

Maybe the best example of this is the asinine "my body, my choice" deployed to support abortion but probably 99% of those people support vaccine mandates. Now pay careful attention here because this is where you will get tripped up and confused:
- Those two positions are not inherently contradictory, that is not the point
- The point is the use of the cutsie phrase "my body, my choice" - most who deploy that phrase really just mean they're pro-abortion but the silly phrase - which they actually do not believe - makes a better t-shirt
- So when you take them at face value you quickly become confused, like when someone claims to want "limited government power" supports turning over 1/2 the economy to the government

What I cannot figure out - and sometimes makes me unfortunately name call out of frustration - is why you just cannot be intellectually honest and consistent - just say you support big government and more government control. That's a perfectly fine position, which is odd you will not own what you so clearly support.

---

Limited government does not mean zero government. It means government power should have legitimate purposes, boundaries, and accountability.

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually, the basis premise of the title should be self evident and totally logical once one examines socialism honestly.

Every time socialism is attempted it involves the heavy hands of government. It can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom. Hence socialism is slavery.

---

Trump's rule can only happen with a lot of executive power, and every failure will result in corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.
I believe the Trump administration is corrupt, and concentrating more authority in the executive branch only increases the potential for abuses of power rather than protecting the liberties of the American people.

---

The problem is your point is easily defeated when we ask you whether or not you support health care fully controlled by the government or if you supported Roe. The reason you radical leftists constantly are exposed as hypocrites is that you do not believe what you type: you have no problem with government control you just have a problem with which government is controlling.

---

insurance companies are making a killing off the government. We need to get personal insurance out of the marketplace. Businesses don't want to be messing with insurance.

---

You're problem is that you're a moron and you're too stupid to realize it. The discussion is not about insurance or Medicare. The discussion is you post:
The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.

Then you argue that the government should assume more power. Are you actually this stupid? Seriously - how do you function in daily life being this big or a moron? It's not a value judgment on your position it's observing what a moron argues against himself and does not realize it. When I wonder how leftists can act so idiotically, I read your posts and you make it clear why.

---

I wassgovt healthcare for the opp

you're confusing disagreement with contradiction. Arguing for a government with enough authority to perform its legitimate functions is not the same thing as arguing for unlimited government power. The real issue is where the limits are and who enforces them.
Calling someone a "moron" doesn't establish your argument; it simply substitutes an insult for one. If you believe government power necessarily destroys freedom, then make that case. Explain which power you oppose, why it is illegitimate, and what constitutional limit should apply.
Ironically, your argument is the one that collapses under its own weight: you condemn government power in the abstract while relying on government to protect the very rights and freedoms you claim to value. The question isn't whether government has power. It's whether that power is limited, accountable, constitutional, and directed toward protecting individual liberty.
That's a substantive argument. "You're stupid" isn't.

---

I do apologize. Sorry for calling you names - I am sorry.

That being said, I genuinely do not understand how you can with a straight face claim you want limited government with limited power but you want to turn the health care system over to it. Surely, there is some planet where even you can see how that makes zero sense.

I suspect it is exactly what was stated in your "I am a classical liberal" thread - you like the idea of wearing the "limited government" T-shirt, but you really do not want limited government.

Not that anyone cares but I am interested in communication and language especially as it is divisively used in politics. I think that is one reason we have trouble having productive conversations because there is tension between reality and a dream world.

Maybe the best example of this is the asinine "my body, my choice" deployed to support abortion but probably 99% of those people support vaccine mandates. Now pay careful attention here because this is where you will get tripped up and confused:
- Those two positions are not inherently contradictory, that is not the point
- The point is the use of the cutsie phrase "my body, my choice" - most who deploy that phrase really just mean they're pro-abortion but the silly phrase - which they actually do not believe - makes a better t-shirt
- So when you take them at face value you quickly become confused, like when someone claims to want "limited government power" supports turning over 1/2 the economy to the government

What I cannot figure out - and sometimes makes me unfortunately name call out of frustration - is why you just cannot be intellectually honest and consistent - just say you support big government and more government control. That's a perfectly fine position, which is odd you will not own what you so clearly support.

---

Limited government does not mean zero government. It means government power should have legitimate purposes, boundaries, and accountability.

---

and the vast majority of our federal government is illegitimate. Same with much of state and local gives as well. The constitution provided plenty of guidelines.

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually, the basis premise of the title should be self evident and totally logical once one examines socialism honestly.

Every time socialism is attempted it involves the heavy hands of government. It can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom. Hence socialism is slavery.

---

Trump's rule can only happen with a lot of executive power, and every failure will result in corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.
I believe the Trump administration is corrupt, and concentrating more authority in the executive branch only increases the potential for abuses of power rather than protecting the liberties of the American people.

---

The problem is your point is easily defeated when we ask you whether or not you support health care fully controlled by the government or if you supported Roe. The reason you radical leftists constantly are exposed as hypocrites is that you do not believe what you type: you have no problem with government control you just have a problem with which government is controlling.

---

insurance companies are making a killing off the government. We need to get personal insurance out of the marketplace. Businesses don't want to be messing with insurance.

---

You're problem is that you're a moron and you're too stupid to realize it. The discussion is not about insurance or Medicare. The discussion is you post:
The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.

Then you argue that the government should assume more power. Are you actually this stupid? Seriously - how do you function in daily life being this big or a moron? It's not a value judgment on your position it's observing what a moron argues against himself and does not realize it. When I wonder how leftists can act so idiotically, I read your posts and you make it clear why.

---

I wassgovt healthcare for the opp

you're confusing disagreement with contradiction. Arguing for a government with enough authority to perform its legitimate functions is not the same thing as arguing for unlimited government power. The real issue is where the limits are and who enforces them.
Calling someone a "moron" doesn't establish your argument; it simply substitutes an insult for one. If you believe government power necessarily destroys freedom, then make that case. Explain which power you oppose, why it is illegitimate, and what constitutional limit should apply.
Ironically, your argument is the one that collapses under its own weight: you condemn government power in the abstract while relying on government to protect the very rights and freedoms you claim to value. The question isn't whether government has power. It's whether that power is limited, accountable, constitutional, and directed toward protecting individual liberty.
That's a substantive argument. "You're stupid" isn't.

---

I do apologize. Sorry for calling you names - I am sorry.

That being said, I genuinely do not understand how you can with a straight face claim you want limited government with limited power but you want to turn the health care system over to it. Surely, there is some planet where even you can see how that makes zero sense.

I suspect it is exactly what was stated in your "I am a classical liberal" thread - you like the idea of wearing the "limited government" T-shirt, but you really do not want limited government.

Not that anyone cares but I am interested in communication and language especially as it is divisively used in politics. I think that is one reason we have trouble having productive conversations because there is tension between reality and a dream world.

Maybe the best example of this is the asinine "my body, my choice" deployed to support abortion but probably 99% of those people support vaccine mandates. Now pay careful attention here because this is where you will get tripped up and confused:
- Those two positions are not inherently contradictory, that is not the point
- The point is the use of the cutsie phrase "my body, my choice" - most who deploy that phrase really just mean they're pro-abortion but the silly phrase - which they actually do not believe - makes a better t-shirt
- So when you take them at face value you quickly become confused, like when someone claims to want "limited government power" supports turning over 1/2 the economy to the government

What I cannot figure out - and sometimes makes me unfortunately name call out of frustration - is why you just cannot be intellectually honest and consistent - just say you support big government and more government control. That's a perfectly fine position, which is odd you will not own what you so clearly support.

---

Limited government does not mean zero government. It means government power should have legitimate purposes, boundaries, and accountability.

---

Absolutely not. That is in now way what limited government means. You're literally proven Orwell's points: you want an authoritarian dictatorship as long as you get to pick the dictator. You're literally using New Speak to create a imaginary world of pure subjectivism. Words matter.

What I am more curious is to why are you just afraid to own it? Why do you feel the need to pretend to believe something you so clearly do not.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually, the basis premise of the title should be self evident and totally logical once one examines socialism honestly.

Every time socialism is attempted it involves the heavy hands of government. It can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom. Hence socialism is slavery.

---

Trump's rule can only happen with a lot of executive power, and every failure will result in corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.
I believe the Trump administration is corrupt, and concentrating more authority in the executive branch only increases the potential for abuses of power rather than protecting the liberties of the American people.

---

The problem is your point is easily defeated when we ask you whether or not you support health care fully controlled by the government or if you supported Roe. The reason you radical leftists constantly are exposed as hypocrites is that you do not believe what you type: you have no problem with government control you just have a problem with which government is controlling.

---

insurance companies are making a killing off the government. We need to get personal insurance out of the marketplace. Businesses don't want to be messing with insurance.

---

You're problem is that you're a moron and you're too stupid to realize it. The discussion is not about insurance or Medicare. The discussion is you post:
The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is. Slavery is the opposite of freedom can only happen with lots of government power and every failure will result in the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats doubling down to increase their power (they certainly won't willingly give it up). The more powerful govt becomes, the less freedom the people have and the more oppressive it is.

Then you argue that the government should assume more power. Are you actually this stupid? Seriously - how do you function in daily life being this big or a moron? It's not a value judgment on your position it's observing what a moron argues against himself and does not realize it. When I wonder how leftists can act so idiotically, I read your posts and you make it clear why.

---

I wassgovt healthcare for the opp

you're confusing disagreement with contradiction. Arguing for a government with enough authority to perform its legitimate functions is not the same thing as arguing for unlimited government power. The real issue is where the limits are and who enforces them.
Calling someone a "moron" doesn't establish your argument; it simply substitutes an insult for one. If you believe government power necessarily destroys freedom, then make that case. Explain which power you oppose, why it is illegitimate, and what constitutional limit should apply.
Ironically, your argument is the one that collapses under its own weight: you condemn government power in the abstract while relying on government to protect the very rights and freedoms you claim to value. The question isn't whether government has power. It's whether that power is limited, accountable, constitutional, and directed toward protecting individual liberty.
That's a substantive argument. "You're stupid" isn't.

---

I do apologize. Sorry for calling you names - I am sorry.

That being said, I genuinely do not understand how you can with a straight face claim you want limited government with limited power but you want to turn the health care system over to it. Surely, there is some planet where even you can see how that makes zero sense.

I suspect it is exactly what was stated in your "I am a classical liberal" thread - you like the idea of wearing the "limited government" T-shirt, but you really do not want limited government.

Not that anyone cares but I am interested in communication and language especially as it is divisively used in politics. I think that is one reason we have trouble having productive conversations because there is tension between reality and a dream world.

Maybe the best example of this is the asinine "my body, my choice" deployed to support abortion but probably 99% of those people support vaccine mandates. Now pay careful attention here because this is where you will get tripped up and confused:
- Those two positions are not inherently contradictory, that is not the point
- The point is the use of the cutsie phrase "my body, my choice" - most who deploy that phrase really just mean they're pro-abortion but the silly phrase - which they actually do not believe - makes a better t-shirt
- So when you take them at face value you quickly become confused, like when someone claims to want "limited government power" supports turning over 1/2 the economy to the government

What I cannot figure out - and sometimes makes me unfortunately name call out of frustration - is why you just cannot be intellectually honest and consistent - just say you support big government and more government control. That's a perfectly fine position, which is odd you will not own what you so clearly support.

---

---

And the irony is that you're accusing me of redefining words while you're redefining "limited government" to mean "government that does only what I approve of."
I have no problem owning my position. The question is whether you can argue against it without pretending that anything short of your definition of limited government is authoritarianism.

---

I don't own it because

Did the bot short out?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Did the bot short out?

---

I don't know what happened. I'll try again.

Sometimes even cut & paste is too much to handle for some people.

Harrison: Absolutely not. That is in now way what limited government means.

You're literally proven Orwell's points: you want an authoritarian dictatorship as long as you get to pick the dictator. You're literally using New Speak to create a imaginary world of pure subjectivism. Words matter.

What I am more curious is to why are you just afraid to own it? Why do you feel the need to pretend to believe something you so clearly do not.

Waco: You're accusing me of redefining "limited government," but you haven't actually shown where my definition is wrong. does
"Limited government" means that government has defined powers, operates within legal and constitutional limits, and is accountable for how it uses those powers. That's not Orwellian "Newspeak"; it's the basic distinction between limited government and unlimited government. Do you see those limits?

If you believe my definition is wrong, then define "limited government" yourself. Specifically, tell me what legitimate functions government may perform and what limits you would place on its power.
And calling my position an "authoritarian dictatorship" doesn't answer that question. It's simply an accusation in place of an argument.
So no, I'm not afraid to "own" my position. I do own it. The question is whether you're willing to debate the actual definition and implications of limited government rather than assigning me a position I haven't stated.

Waco being evasive again, I observe.

The plain fact Waco, is that you tried to slip a few additives to the phrase "limited government", and now you're mad you got called out by Harrison.

However, since there is a chance that you are simply the victim of poor information which you somehow did not remedy with your own curiosity, the philosophical roots of limited government go back to Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, whose Two Treatises of Government (1690) argued that government must be restricted to powers explicitly granted by the people, with protections against taxation without representation, arbitrary rule, and delegation of law-making authority. Locke's ideas heavily influenced the Founding Fathers.

The idea is while we cannot abolish government, we should push back against it to keep it as small as possible, especially given the blatant greed and cronyism among politicians. If limited government were really common, politicians would quit after a term or two because they could make more money in non-government work. And if we had a government that was even trying to lose weight, we would be talking about the debt far less than they do, while in fact there are no major politicians proposing any plans to cut spending in a meaningful way or reduce government bloat.

We don't need arguments trying to justify even more spending or even broader intrusion into our lives. We absolutely do not need apologists for any of the big-party politicians.

You're sort of mixing two different points as you tend to do.

My point was simple: it is impossible for one to for "limited government" and then want to turn much of our lives over to the government, which is what a single-payer system would do. That would be the largest government expansion in history.

But you sort of move off of that point into wanting to define "limited government."

But it is a fair question, and because I'm intellectually honest I'll attempt a first pass. Let's tackle systematically:

First, "government" - I think we can agree we're talking about the federal government

Second, "limited"
- Let's acknowledge without disagreement "limited" is a subjective term so we can never really prove if the definition is correct
- My second assumption is that we are speaking about the adjective not the noun, i.e. we considering restrictions not boundaries
- Now it is important to acknowledge how we measure? I would posit a couple of ways:

• Budget
• Personnel
• Most critically, the importance of and interactions with citizens and business in order to function and love, i.e. how often much you deal with it to put it simply or how much power does it have over you

- At one end, the most objective definition to a "limited government" would be the government is limited to those responsibilities outlined in the Constitution
- One might reasonable argue pre-New Deal was a "limited government"
- For me, really subjectively: what are those things that the states cannot effectively do:

• Border protection
• National defense
• Some infrastructure (digital and physical)
• Interstate commerce

That seems reasonable, I am sure I forgot something. But that I would define as a truly limited government. Again, the original question was not the merits of single-payer health care but whether that represented "limited government"

Ironically, in the 21st century (under Pres Autopen) the Texas state govt proved more effective at border security than the federal govt. but that's because Abbott made an effort to protect Americans (& brilliantly made sanctuary cities live with the costs of their decisions) while the traitors did the opposite by bringing in murderers, rapists, pedis, sex traffickers, gang bangers, etc.

The Dems are the party of criminals and crime. They want as much crime as possible and consistently do what they can to incentivize criminals.

"The irreconcilable values of equality and freedom may clash in new and more visceral ways. And capitalism and the constitutional order can no longer sustain themselves by inertia and memory alone." Jason Willick WaPo

Waco1947 said:

---

"The irreconcilable values of equality and freedom may clash in new and more visceral ways. And capitalism and the constitutional order can no longer sustain themselves by inertia and memory alone." Jason Willick WaPo

---

I guess I need a little context.
Not sure what Willick means

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The irreconcilable values of equality and freedom may clash in new and more visceral ways. And capitalism and the constitutional order can no longer sustain themselves by inertia and memory alone." Jason Willick WaPo

---

I guess I need a little context.
Not sure what Willick means

---

"The irreconcilable values of equality and freedom may clash…"
He is saying that equality and freedom are both important American ideals, but they can sometimes pull in opposite directions.

Equality can lead people to favor government action to reduce large disparities in wealth, opportunity, or power.
Freedom can lead people to resist government intervention because it restricts what individuals are free to do with their property, money, choices, and associations.

It is an age-old republican clash that the Constitution set up. I think this is a discussion point.

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The irreconcilable values of equality and freedom may clash in new and more visceral ways. And capitalism and the constitutional order can no longer sustain themselves by inertia and memory alone." Jason Willick WaPo

---

I guess I need a little context.
Not sure what Willick means

---

"The irreconcilable values of equality and freedom may clash…"
He is saying that equality and freedom are both important American ideals, but they can sometimes pull in opposite directions.

Equality can lead people to favor government action to reduce large disparities in wealth, opportunity, or power.
Freedom can lead people to resist government intervention because it restricts what individuals are free to do with their property, money, choices, and associations.

It is an age-old republican clash that the Constitution set up. I think this is a discussion point.

---

Well, I favor equality of opportunity
I favor freedom to choose, but not freedom from the consequences of your choices

That's reasonable and I think most conservatives would agree with that.

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The irreconcilable values of equality and freedom may clash in new and more visceral ways. And capitalism and the constitutional order can no longer sustain themselves by inertia and memory alone." Jason Willick WaPo

---

I guess I need a little context.
Not sure what Willick means

---

I think the bot has been shorting out.

The AI is not advanced enough to think just post Talking Points.