flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:50:17 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:37:21 +0100, richard
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:04 +0100, richard
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54816897.html

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

The previous administration initiated the waste of trillions of
dollars on the invasion of Iraq.


The cost of the Iraq war, from beginning all the way to now,
hasn't yet reached the amount Obama and the Democrats in Congress
spent in just one 'stimulus' of bribes bill that they didn't even
allow anyone to read before passing.



Your taxes up in smoke.

Each administration has its own way of blowing your cash.

**** the lot of them - but Obama's way is arguably more benign.


The destruction of liberty is never 'benign'.

Two wrongs don't make a right

I couldn't agree more so why is it you appear to be making that kind
of argument?


- but what was the Patriot act if it wasn't the destruction of
liberty ?

Just exactly which 'liberty' did you loose? The 'liberty' to chat
'in private' with Al Qaida in Pakistan or the 'liberty' to plan a
bombing in secret?

I have my own problems with certain parts of the Patriot Act but it
was targeted at avowed enemies of the United States and (already)
illegal activities. It was passed with overwhelming support from
both parties, making most of the critics cowards and hypocrites,
and most provisions were sunsetted, meaning they were not permanent.

Now, I'm not going to argue that the Patriot Act was '100%' benign
but I haven't yet found an average, everyday, Joe who, besides
spouting political talking points, could put his finger on anything
in his life it affected and I doubt the vast majority of people,
save a few terrorists, would have been able to tell it even existed
if not for the 'politics'.

Obama's proposed 'heath care reform', or 'insurance reform', or
whatever 'focus group wording' he's calling it this week, is another
whole ball of wax. It affects every single soul in the country, is
permanent, and, if the critics are correct (and it's my opinion they
are), amounts to a government take over of 16% of the economy.

No evidence for that whatsoever.

Said the blind man.

Just how do you propose Obama "control healthcare costs" without
control?

Sorry, that's not "a government takeover of 16% of the economy." We won't
be doing any more redefining of my statements, sorry.

Do you have any evidence of such a takeover or not? Do remember, ther
health care plan depends on private insurers, which are already regulated by
government.