Now, I'm no fan of the American auto industry either, but for much different reasons than Obama. Obama sees the auto industry as a whole as evil greedy capitalist pollution profiteers, and clearly takes joy in overseeing their demise. He sees the collapse of the American auto industry as a success of his ideals.
I, on the other hand, dislike what the American automobile makers have allowed to have happen to their once prosperous industry. One has to ask the question: Why are the foreign owned, yet locally manufactured, automobiles doing just fine in today's economy, yet the American manufacturers are struggling? The answer: Unions. The successful auto makers never bowed to union pressure. Foreign companies realized the hazard of giving up control of their own companies to socialist union thugs, pushing unsustainable pension plans and benefits. If the American auto industry had the spine to kick them out years ago, they'd be much better off now.
But what does it mean? No, seriously. It doesn't make sense. A Google search of the above statement returns only two insufficient
results for this exact phrase, so finding the meaning there was
pointless. Logically, this is the best I can do to understand it...
If this sign/phrase is supposed to be a response to the statement that freedom often requires the selfless sacrifice of human life to maintain it (as history has shown us over and over again), then what does this say? If you can't get/keep your freedom without struggle, then it's not really freedom? Are we supposed to expect from this that others will just give us freedom, and that fighting for it defeats the effect? Sometimes I have to wonder if Liberals either don't understand English, or just don't understand History. In either case, it has got to be due to a great public school miseducation.
All throughout history, the enslaved and oppressed had to fight for their freedom, and lives were always lost. Bending over and taking it in the rear is not freedom. There's always some miscreant ready and willing to step right up with their pants down when you do. To be honest, these sound like the words of an either an idealistic brat or vagrant who cries that they deserve food or pay without work. There's always a price.
What happens when you allow the federal goverment to seize your income without representation? They seize even more.
Today, the Supreme Court once again invented new law, ignoring all previous precident, which allows the government to take your property in the name of goverment-imposed "economic development". This isn't even eminent domain. This is a private venture.
Let's take a look at the Judges who had opposed this ruling:
Reagan appointee Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Reagan appointee Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Reagan appointee Justice Antonin Scalia
Bush 41 appointee Justice Clarence Thomas
And those who ruled for it:
Ford appointee Justice John Paul Stevens
Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy
Bush 41 appointee Justice David H. Souter
Clinton appointee Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Clinton appointee Justice Stephen G. Breyer
Take a guess at what party is the face of the new Socialist movement.
UPDATE: Still isn't clear? Compare to the Bush v. Gore ruling.
Why is it that every time I debate a Socialist on the Capitalism vs. Socialism argument, they defend Socialism with their good "intent", in the face of complete historical failure, save one example (so far), Sweden. But it's not good enough for Capitalism to work every time it's applied, save a relative few abuses. Let me say it another way: Socialism can apparently be superior even though it fails on a whole, but can find an exception where it worked. But Capitalism fails if even one exception is found, even though it works on a whole.
Socialism is inherently flawed: It rewards those who will not to work, and you might have an idealistic few who will work anyhow.
Capitalism has some flaws: Even though it rewards people for good products or services, sometimes abuses get rewarded for a relatively short time before the market reacts to them.
The only exception to the successes of Capitalism is the rare abuse.
The only exception to the abuses of Socialism is the rare success.
I think I've said it enough different ways. Maybe one of them will get through. Well, maybe one more. As I like to say: The only flaw in Socialism is that it rarely works.