Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I know more about the 21st century then them. I'm more familiar with our current problems, and I'm more capable of coming up with solutions to these modern problems because I didn't die 200 years ago.
|
so you are suggesting that because it is the 21st century and not the 18th, that the limitations on federal power listed in the constitution should no longer apply? Because if you do, then the following statement by you makes zero sense with the actions that you are trying to accomplish.
Quote:
|
It's called something? Okey dokey. The living part is the amendments (you know, like the second amendment?). The document can be changed and updated as needed, thus "living".
|
The amendments do not 'live', nor do they 'breathe', like most liberals tend to intimate. To further this part of the argument would require digging up an old thread or starting a new one though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You do in fact rely on the services that the police (and for that matter firefighters) provide. To suggest otherwise is rather insulting to police and firefighters.
|
I don't 'rely' on them, although I am not saying they don't provide a benefit, however, I do not NEED them to protect myself nor my home. Having been trained in both security matters and how to fight jet fuel fires (thank you USMC) I'm pretty secure in my knowledge of how to fight most fires. Equipment to do so is the deciding factor. Pity the city won't let me hook up to the fire hydrant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Those two things are linked, dk. The police officer pulls over the drunk drivers so he doesn't run you or your family over. To put it in language I think you may appreciate: they protect you and your family so you don't have to. You can act as a contingency all you want, but doesn't knowing they are there make you safer? I'm sure the answer is yes.
|
The answer is no, simply because you are looking at things backwards. They provide the contingency because THEY are not around me 24/7/365. Because I am the most immediate person surrounding myself, I alone am completely responsible for mine and my families protection. The police are my backup. To put it in terms YOU might understand, If a small group of thugs managed to break through your homes defenses, who is going to protect you and yours for the few minutes it takes a policeman to arrive?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Either the people pay the taxes to the government who is, based on what I see with police and firefighters, not trying to make a profit to fill, a CEO's 7 figure salary, or you pay a corporation who's goal is profit. Think about that. Imagine having to pay $300/mo for private services (for those who can't have guns or who aren't willing to kill).
|
do you carry a cop with you wherever you go? Does ted kennedy have a bodyguard everywhere he goes?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You're seeing a difference where there is none. Public roadways -> public healthcare. Same basic idea: we all pay into it a little so we all can use it.
|
apples and oranges in fact. With public roadways, I can use them as often or wherever I want. With public healthcare, there WILL be limitations and things not covered.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
They don't. Go to the UK. But don't bring a gun, they don't allow those there.
|
I'm assuming that you consider the UK a 'western' nation? This is just one example of why socialized medicine doesn't work.
Liberal MP goes to US for cancer operation