Ron Paul unimpressed with Limbaugh apology

OccupyThis · Mar 5, 2012

Quote from Maverick74:

OK, let me put it a different way. You let the government in your bedroom because you took their money. Then Rick Santorum shows up and tells you how you can use that money. See, this is what you guys don't understand. Everything Bush did during his term was using powers that democrats created years before. The only way to truly have liberty and freedom is never to give government that power. Now you might like President Obama and think he would never do such things but one day someone might be in office that might put conditions on that money. It's best not to give the government that power to begin with.

I hope it's me that the government sends to gabbys bedroom!

Brass · Mar 5, 2012

Quote from Maverick74:

OK, let me put it a different way. You let the government in your bedroom because you took their money. Then Rick Santorum shows up and tells you how you can use that money. See, this is what you guys don't understand. Everything Bush did during his term was using powers that democrats created years before. The only way to truly have liberty and freedom is never to give government that power. Now you might like President Obama and think he would never do such things but one day someone might be in office that might put conditions on that money. It's best not to give the government that power to begin with.

Except in this case, the government sought to diminish theocratic influence and control in the secular component of society. As you probably know, I'm all in favor of taking baby steps away from the Dark Ages. In this case, the government simply sought to contain religious authority, control and influence within its "holy" confines. Are you not at all troubled by the church's attempt at overreach?

Brass · Mar 5, 2012

Quote from OccupyThis:

I hope it's me that the government sends to gabbys bedroom!

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't swing that way.

Mercor · Mar 5, 2012

Quote from Maverick74:

OK, let me put it a different way. You let the government in your bedroom because you took their money. Then Rick Santorum shows up and tells you how you can use that money. See, this is what you guys don't understand. Everything Bush did during his term was using powers that democrats created years before. The only way to truly have liberty and freedom is never to give government that power. Now you might like President Obama and think he would never do such things but one day someone might be in office that might put conditions on that money. It's best not to give the government that power to begin with.

Good point,this should be the Republican argument.

What Obama has done is to put the power to control this product into the hands of one official. This official decides who get the product and who pays for it.
This is a risk to the availability of this product at some future time.
This is why the founders designed a system to keep this power at the local level or in the hands of the public.
This is just bad Government design.

OccupyThis · Mar 5, 2012

Quote from Brass:

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't swing that way.

It doesn't matter which way you swing. Close your eyes.

piezoe · Mar 5, 2012

Quote from Maverick74:

OK, let me put it a different way. You let the government in your bedroom because you took their money. Then Rick Santorum shows up and tells you how you can use that money. See, this is what you guys don't understand. Everything Bush did during his term was using powers that democrats created years before. The only way to truly have liberty and freedom is never to give government that power. Now you might like President Obama and think he would never do such things but one day someone might be in office that might put conditions on that money. It's best not to give the government that power to begin with.

You make quite a good point. Certainly one that should be carefully considered.

Maverick74 · Mar 5, 2012

Quote from Brass:

Except in this case, the government sought to diminish theocratic influence and control in the secular component of society. As you probably know, I'm all in favor of taking baby steps away from the Dark Ages. In this case, the government simply sought to contain religious authority, control and influence within its "holy" confines. Are you not at all troubled by the church's attempt at overreach?

Let me try again. Without the government creating this power, the Church has no power to grab. Simple solution. Take that power away from the government and you take the power away from the church.

Brass · Mar 5, 2012

Quote from Maverick74:

Let me try again. Without the government creating this power, the Church has no power to grab. Simple solution. Take that power away from the government and you take the power away from the church.

So, going forward, what is the solution? I see how you wish to limit the government's reach. How do you propose to effectively countervail the church's reach?

RCG Trader · Mar 5, 2012

Quote from Maverick74:

Let me try again. Without the government creating this power, the Church has no power to grab. Simple solution. Take that power away from the government and you take the power away from the church.

Nope, take away the government's power to moderate, we become a theocracy.

Do you really think the evangelicals will just pick up their bibles and go home??

Maverick74 · Mar 5, 2012

Quote from Brass:

So, going forward, what is the solution? I see how you wish to limit the government's reach. How do you propose to effectively countervail the church's reach?

Very easy. You limit the power of the government. Keep the government out of the insurance and health care industry. If health care remains a free market, then they can cover whatever they want. The church can't make insurance companies do anything without the strong arm of the government. They can scream from behind the alter, but their words have no power without government regulation.