>>I never advocated limitless power to the government.<<

The U.S. Constitution does not give its government the power to socialize newspapers. Discussion closed.

>>Some things (like health care) are better left to a body that consists entirely out of elected people rather than the free market.<<

There's a reason I had a million dollars of medical work done in the USA. And it's not because your country funds the best healthcare system in the world. It's because the free market does. Your statement that "some things are better left to a body that" blah blah blah blah is ignorant garbage at best. You're an ideological child [/young adult, the physiology is the same], and so long as you choose to attack me rather than my statements, I don't really care to embarrass myself further responding.

>>No, if you claim we're all indoctrinated for merely supporting the idea that state funded media isn't so bad after all....<<

That isn't the reason I gave, nor did I claim you were _all_... if you aren't going to respond to my statements but only strawmen _repeatedly_ even after I call you on it, I'm not going to engage in some distorted bullshit contest where you repeatedly respond to comments I never made. I point out that you're responding to statements I never made and you can, in response, respond to more statements I never made, but I'm going to lose interest in responding. I have. If you had any interest in a real exchange, you'd have responded, rather than twice-over responding to straw-man arguments I never made.

>>Time and time again, people turn to insults when a different approach is suggested. <<

Good point. You, alone, did just that.

>>Then it's not me who blows up the discussion, but then it's you.<<

Again, any 5th rate language or logic teacher will point out to you that, because you did it, you did it. Law of identity. Nobody disputes this law.

>>but that post you made, lade you look like you slided off into the more common style that gives me diarrhoea.<<

Blah blah blah. As is evident in this response, I'm not into the garbage exchange you're starting here. My last post made it clear I'm not interested in the pseudointellectual drivel you're giving me here. I pointed out that you ignored content and resorted to personal attacks, and in response you claimed that I was the one resorting to personal attacks... It's just awkward, weird, embarrassing, and stupid. I'm not a child. I'm not uneducated. And, though you describe me as "American right wing" (I added the caps, cause that was beyond you), I disagree with the American "right wing" on a number of issues.

This is embarrassing child's play, and I'm not interested in it. So long as you want to REPEATEDLY attack straw-man arguments and project upon me your ignorant remarks, I'll go make babies with Lisa and not respond.

I believe there's plenty of room for debate on this topic, just like on socialized healthcare (I've repeated ad nauseam that I'm not against social welfare, and advocated for its reform that it may be continued in the future, giving MORE to those who need it. Without reform, its expansion will bankrupt our country like it has [and will continue to] bankruped European countries, at which point it will FAIL to provide the social welfare which I, repeatedly, have suported).

Blah blah blah blah. I get more and more ignorant children responding to posts with straw-man posts ad nauseam. I'm not a Christian. I'm not a [Amerikan] Republican. You can't show your inability to read [my posts] and expect me to respond like the ignorant Amerikan stereotype you respond to me as if I am. When I call you out on doing something, saying "YOU DO IT" doesn't confuse me into thinking you're right. It just tells me you're a dishonest idiot without the dignity to have a real discussion. It doesn't insult me. This is an internet discussion board. I've seen all the worst retards (we know "Decimus" is still around) call me names. They only make me thankful I live a monumentally better life than they do. I'm not going to bullshit with you as if I'm as ignorant and stupid as you are. I never engaged in the "US vs EU" thread because its very premise seemed to me pretentious and ignorant. But you can't just respond to me with relativist claims that don't even hold face validity (and obviously not even know what that means) and project your shortcomings on me and expect some sort of response that treats you as a legitimate poster. You're spamming disrespectful, insulting, ignorant drivel. Don't shit on my lawn and accuse me of the crime. That's just f****** stupid. I have better things to do than to lay out my case that I didn't shit in my lawn.

Kemp, this was not meant as an insult:

"But, most Americans don't understand and thus don't like extended government. Soon, "the socialism is evil by default"-tantrum will be uttered again.."

The US of A doesn't have a history of 'big government'. The closest you got was after the crash of '29 when the new deal was proposed. If that was offensive to you, I regret that I put it like that. The second sentence is just a cynical reflection on how the politics forum works.

>>Tyranny from taxing electronics? Good joke. <<

Every time a government acts beyond the power given to it in its constitution, this leads to tyranny. Every time such a limiting document is ignored, it erodes the authority of law, setting the stage to ignore it more in the future--in this case, overstepping the limits placed by the US Constitution. This is unlawful, but you call it a joke. I'm glad you think tyranny is funny. Nanci Pelosi laughs about the Constitution as she breaks it. Somebody should lock the bitch up. I'm sure the joke's on me, and you'd love to live in Cuba or China. Tyranny is a good joke! The law is funny!

If the civil rights amendment is 200 years old I am more gay than Primo.

Amendments are how we atte to modify it, and have done so.

not through a strawman argument that it is to old.

If tats the case then laws against murder should go away.

"You're claiming that a government can hand out money to certain companies in a free market and not others (not based on consumer choice) and that this will have absolutely no negative impact on the consumer. That's just silly."

In my country the two poublic station are have allways a less percentage on share than then private ones.

You also assume that the public station will be there to make money, which is also wrong. They are there to provide a service for the public, they will not compete against private stations.