Its pretty simple, Med ... honestly, it is. You believe in freedom AND security.

I forget which founder said it, but it goes something like this: "Those who want liberty and security will gain neither." In other words, when one looks to government for security, for the portion of security that is given, a portion of liberty is taken in return. You don't see this and I do. That's the main political difference between you and I.

Vi

__________________
Damned right I'm an equal opportunity offender, I'm a Conservative!

for the portion of security that is given, a portion of liberty is taken in return. You don't see this and I do. That's the main political difference between you and I.

So don't you say the only purpose of government is to protect us, and if so, then aren't you giving up some freedom?

__________________
"I suppose I always knew America would eventually break the planet, like some ghastly, hyperactive toddler that gets hold of a mobile phone and then smashes it repeatedly against the edge of a table". Quote from british journalist.

Nope, I (and you) are actually gaining freedom. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individule from the tyranny of the majority. What YOU are after is the submission of the individule through the force of the majority. Huge difference, Med.

With all due respect, Med ... If you think about what I just said long enough, you will gain an understanding as to the disasters that socialism has caused down through the ages.

Vi

__________________
Damned right I'm an equal opportunity offender, I'm a Conservative!

What YOU are after is the submission of the individule through the force of the majority. Huge difference, Med.
I think you have it wrong here. I am all for the individual as far as civil rights go, but the society as a whole should have more influence than a few individuals, on government, such as we have now where a few rich industrialists dictate government policies. If the "people" were running the country, (as the founding Fathers tried to make so), the government would be doing what it was intended to do, look after it's citizens welfare, ensure domestic tranquility, and provide for security! That is where you and I are different. you believe it's allright to have a few rich Bastards run the country with no responsibilities to the public, and fill their coffers to max overflow, as in no taxes on the rich! I say we should take back our country and throw the rich criminals in the Bastille!

__________________
"I suppose I always knew America would eventually break the planet, like some ghastly, hyperactive toddler that gets hold of a mobile phone and then smashes it repeatedly against the edge of a table". Quote from british journalist.

med, IMHO, you have a blind eye for the opportunities afforded to the industrious individual in this country.
There are, in actuality, more opportunities for you too, med, to become a plutocrat!
It happens all the time in USA, even more so nowadays, with the advent of the internet.

Med, you ever hear of Napoleon Hill? It works better in modern America than ever before; this is indeed, the human pinnacle you love to disparage!
What the founders have done beyond their wildest dreams is to promote a climate within which the greatest amount of wealth has been created for the greatest amount of people in the annals of human history!

__________________
If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT.
~ Frank Zappa ~

Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it.
~George Bernard Shaw~

__________________
"I suppose I always knew America would eventually break the planet, like some ghastly, hyperactive toddler that gets hold of a mobile phone and then smashes it repeatedly against the edge of a table". Quote from british journalist.

Med ...

I believe that in past posts, you've agreed that an income of $300,000+ per year deems a person to be rich. In order to redistribute that "rich" person's wealth, you would have that individule face the tyranny of the majority through government force. That is NOT what the founders intended at all.

Vi