Who new wrote:What did she need talking points for then? And to be accurate, I called ALL of you simplistic and unreasonable. Even you, Pastor Gary, would only repeat Dick Cheney fears of Nancy Pelpsi and the democrats. Remember that? If you guys have educated perspectives it isn't showing. It's time to grow up and think for yourselves instead repeating the nearest autocratic bloviator.
Disagreement with my views and opinions? Great. Fire away. But, surely you're smart enough and patient enough to sit down and peel away on the particulars of these so drastically flawed expressions. I'm going to toss you a bone of consideration, here. I'm going to invite you to spell out what it is you have a problem with in what any one of us have said. Not just the fact that you disagree with it, but the nature and scope of the reasons for the disagreement.
It is not enough to point to the use of government provided services such as schools by government-does-too-much critics as myself, and then to say, "Aha! You're a HYPOCRITE!" First of all, government mandates school attendance in one form or another. Secondly, most parents see no options or alternatives to government-run schools, or they are unwilling for their own reasons -- good or not -- to avail themselves of those alternatives. Thirdly, those of us who have grown up with public educations and are critical of the federal government are, by and large, older than the era of federal domination of education and we feel quite free to disparage it now, thanks. Fourth, the government controlled models of education and commerce leave people who still wish to be productive in spite of those models are left with no other options but to work with and through the gatekeepers who have set themselves up nicely as gatekeepers funded by other people's money taken from them against their will. I do not deny that there is good produced from the governmental system; I do deny that the system is worth it. And, when I say "it", pick your topic. I'll probably agree with it.
Do yourself the respect you deserve by arguing with the ideas and not running away, childishly, pointing back at the rest of us because you think you've identified a "gotcha". You haven't. What you've argued by implication, if nothing else, is that we all ought to be thankful for the big hand of government for serving us so well and doing so justly, and for not having already straightened us out with pains of confiscation and constraint. Yyyyyyeah. Right.
Edit: And, I just saw where people who believe in limited federal authority are being tagged by DHS as quasi threats to national security. Well, count me in, I guess. I'm not going to stand still while government treats people as slaves. That's why I've been vocal, including here, about our drug laws. I won't be one, either, for you, Obama, Napolitano or any other big-federal-government power hungry hack. This is a GMD -- a government of mass destruction. Destruction of liberty. Destruction of private property. And, I'll say this .... "this government" means the Republicans AND the Democrats. This didn't start with Obama. But he's pushing the throttle on it as far as he can.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).