[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Other areas where things are getting screwy is the government incursion into healthcare. Some of the stuff coming out of my wife's hospital by governmental mandate really does scare me. It is causing an overall lowering of the standard of care, essentially death by red tape, reinterpretation of who can save your life, (literally.)

I'm doubtful of your inference here (and I work in healthcare). Can you give me a specific example.

You also seem to imply that the government has been, until now, not heavily involved in healthcare; which would not be accurate at all.

But what really scares me is not the politicians, it is the people who elect them. People who gladly trade freedom for an illusion of safety. It is as if we as a nation fear ghosts. Thats why we have to take off shoes at the airport, submit to ridiculous scans that don't actually make us a shred safer.

Agreed: though I fear that's not new either. The fact that we have such great quotes railing against it from two centuries back should bear me out there.

Want to win the war on terror? Don't fear the terrorists and go about your routine daily life. I don't recall how many WTC bombers were captured before 9-11, but IIRC, were there not at least 3 attempts under Clinton where they busted the guys beforehand?

Depends on your definition of "win". Address the causes and you can functionally end terrorism. It's like crime (which is to say it has a tendency to spring up, and there will always be some kook somewhere, but it has a heavy "environment" portion)

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

It seems that for most, how this question is answered depends on how much they agree or disagree with the party in power. For instance, those who opposed the new health care bill will tend to view that as an act of tyranny. It certainly is an example of the government forcing millions into a system they do not want. On the other hand, those who are proponents of the new health care bill will tend to view it in a positive light.

Don't Medicade and Medicare do the same thing, and aren't both supported by both parties?

The majority does decide the laws. Admittedly less directly than in a pure democracy, but none-the-less. The majority of Americans favored healthcare reform (depending on how the question is phrased: the majority still do)... so we can appeal to "oppression of the majority", but I don't think that constitutes tyranny.

(and actually a "tyrant" was a king of a Greek city-state)

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Mullet

Agreed.

Communicating hatred, and being peaceful are also pretty incongruent.

There's no law against incongruity. The whole point of the first amendment is that as long as you play by the rules of society, you should be free to espouse any position you want, even if that position is hatred.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

There's no law against incongruity. The whole point of the first amendment is that as long as you play by the rules of society, you should be free to espouse any position you want, even if that position is hatred.

I'm fairly certain I never challenged the legality of her actions. I challened the statement that her actions were those of a 'peaceful old lady.'

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Don't Medicade and Medicare do the same thing, and aren't both supported by both parties?

The majority does decide the laws. Admittedly less directly than in a pure democracy, but none-the-less. The majority of Americans favored healthcare reform (depending on how the question is phrased: the majority still do)... so we can appeal to "oppression of the majority", but I don't think that constitutes tyranny.

(and actually a "tyrant" was a king of a Greek city-state)

That's true, but the question wasn't are the republicans or democrats tyrants, but is our government in general. Also, weren't medicare and medicade both a little controversial for the same reason when they were passed? If CGR were around back then wouldn't we be having the same conversation?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

That's true, but the question wasn't are the republicans or democrats tyrants, but is our government in general.

You said:

"It seems that for most, how this question is answered depends on how much they agree or disagree with the party in power."

and brought up UHC. It seemed to me that you were asserting that only one party was in favvor of national healthcare (such as medicare or medicade).

Also, weren't medicare and medicade both a little controversial for the same reason when they were passed? If CGR were around back then wouldn't we be having the same conversation?

Perhaps, but they are currently supported by both sides.

Darn tyrants: giving care to the ill.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Mullet

How the hell can someone who has a sign with a swastika on it be considered 'peaceful?'

If they're Buddhist or Hindu, it's just fine. Or Native American. Or an Anglo-American in the 1930's and before. The swastika has a long history as a symbol of good meaning in many cultures before National Socialism came to Deutschland.

Many Christians believe a fiery holocaust will destroy citizens of a number of Middle Eastern nations when Christ returns. Is that not dangerous speech?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

(and actually a "tyrant" was a king of a Greek city-state)

Just a quibble: a tyrant to the ancient Greeks was not a "king" but simply the sole ruler, as with Aristagoras of Miletus who had no bloodline claim and no fancy throne. "Tyrants," both those who proved to be self-centered at the expense of others and those who proved to be generally fair rulers (such as Pisistratos of Athens), were simply a man who rose to power not from inheritance of a kingly throne or election by the masses.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by scared2mosh

Only kinda. Clove Tabacco was the only thing I really wanted to try so... yeah haha.

Don't worry! I've almost perfected my homebrew version and can get you the recipe when you hit eighteen.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

If they're Buddhist or Hindu, it's just fine. Or Native American. Or an Anglo-American in the 1930's and before. The swastika has a long history as a symbol of good meaning in many cultures before National Socialism came to Deutschland.

Many Christians believe a fiery holocaust will destroy citizens of a number of Middle Eastern nations when Christ returns. Is that not dangerous speech?

I am aware of and understand these uses. However, the overwhelmingly common modern interpretation of that symbol is none of these things you mentioned.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Just a quibble: a tyrant to the ancient Greeks was not a "king" but simply the sole ruler, as with Aristagoras of Miletus who had no bloodline claim and no fancy throne. "Tyrants," both those who proved to be self-centered at the expense of others and those who proved to be generally fair rulers (such as Pisistratos of Athens), were simply a man who rose to power not from inheritance of a kingly throne or election by the masses.

Touche'

[Mediaeval]

As Bill mentioned, there are the TSA scanners, which violate the Fourth Amendment, and the new healthcare legislation, where the federal government expands into more a role not authorized under the Constitution. Add to that NDAA.