Hyperay2

-12 pts ยท May 27, 2014


12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

12 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

12 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Yeah like getting the government to bail them out...oh wait.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They have that in jail. Go ask an inmate if they would rather have that or freedom.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I am not against progress I am for it but the state is the biggest hindrance to progress.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In fact there is a reason why it is so hard to get a law passed. The founders created it that way.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

When the state is not trying they are not forcing people to do things. I like it when they are not trying. Freedom is good governing.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

What do citizens need more than freedom?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Positive change is positive, but positive for who? A law might be positive for a few and negative for many. Freedom yields the best result

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

So you are talking about the social responsibilities of the state?

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Again with that word change. Sometimes staying consistent is progress and change a failure. Remember the addict example?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Is political progress measured by how many new laws are passed?

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

So the question remains the bigger the gov the better its citizens are? Because usually the more laws that are past the bigger gov gets.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Incorrect, if an addict is clean and sober for 5 yrs, then uses, that is change but not progress.

12 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

When you say obstructionism I assume you mean limiting how big gov can get. Is that really a bad thing? History has shown us that it isn't

12 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Again I ask why is it that progress is always measured in how many new laws are passed?

12 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Clearly. You have such eloquence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCx2uGBhvEc Were you the winner or the guy singing 2pac for his argument?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

For future reference the first person to insult the other is the one who lost the debate of ideas.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

So without taxes we wouldn't know how to make roads or teach children. Got it.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

What did i get wrong? So you like when money is taken from you by force?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

So you can't follow that logic? How is being able to borrow as much money as you want limited?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

But you oppose money being taken from you by force. Hence you to are anti-tax and should be scrutinized heavily.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I don't think you know what anti means. It simply means you oppose something. You don't have to have to have a picket sign to be anti.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

People said the same thing about slavery at one point.

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Limited resources? Have you ever seen them not raise the debt ceiling?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I know what the difference is one is willing to take action in a peaceful manner. Should they be punished or stopped for doing that?

12 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1