Perfect Example of Too Much Government Control!

Ladies and gentlemen...I give you the first, perfect example of the problem with the level of control government has over the people. Yes...children should be vaccinated against disease but no...we should not be treated like livestock. But, here you have "takers" (eg. people living off government/our money) who will not get said money unless they vaccinate their children, even if it is against their parent's beliefs. Textbook example!

News Story

Now lets play a game. How many ways can you modify this just slightly and make it even more disturbing? I'll go first with a few easy ones.

Vote democrat or loose your beer allowance.
Stop smoking or no ACA health vouchers.
Liberal schooling (indoctrination) or no student loans.

First, they came for the welfare bums-

and I did not speak out, for I am NOT a welfare bum.


...but I don't like it, and there's nothing I can do about it. Thanks again, guv'nah.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

No one will have issue with this. But bring up drug testing people in order for them to receive their food stamps and housing income and watch how many people flip out.

What the moral of the story, kids?

Don't be dependent on the state.

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

Because it has shown to be pointless and wasteful, the amount of people that actually tested positive didn't warrant the amount of money it took. How is that tit for tat different than this tho?


Pretty sure the people down under wanted this, it wasn't some crazy move out of left field by the gov there.

Now lets play a game. How many ways can you modify this just slightly and make it even more disturbing? I'll go first with a few easy ones.

Ya lets play the slippery slope game!
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Zerodoublehero

Because it has shown to be pointless and wasteful, the amount of people that actually tested positive didn't warrant the amount of money it took. How is that tit for tat different than this tho?

Ya lets play the slippery slope game!
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Maybe ready your own site there buddy.

Millions and millions. A tidal wave of voices. All of which use sound bites as their opinion
This is all talk and no results. they can control the masses this way.
Example....................The evidence for 9/11-Truth was obviously left behind on purpose
WTC7 in broad daylight, tiny initial hole in the side of the Pentagon, the Operation Northwood's papers being "mistakenly released"
And people are supposed to see that the evidence was left behind on purpose.

Yet, most people believe the official story despite the fact that the government made it obvious not only that the buildings collapsed from controlled demolition, but also that the evidence for this was obviously left behind on purpose.

Even conspiracy theorists have a hard time with this obvious fact.
They leave behind the evidence on purpose, they make it obvious that they left behind the evidence on purpose, AND MOST PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY.
They have opinion makers and leaders on each side, supplying a few critical flashpoint incidents to create argument.
So, when creating propaganda, you try and create your own rebellion, to give natural born rebels the illusion of control.
That way, you secretly control both sides by creating an artificial war that hides away the main issue

A debate that will rage on forever with hardly any change happening.
As a society, we're basically begging for somebody to do our thinking for us!
As long as there's a vacuum of curiosity, there will be someone more than happy to fill in the blanks for us.

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

Huh? What slippery slope did I talk about...

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

No one will have issue with this. But bring up drug testing people in order for them to receive their food stamps and housing income and watch how many people flip out.

I sure don't know why you would presume to speak for every single person in the whole world, but you're wrong. I have big problems with both, based on silly little things like the inalienable right to be secure in one's person, and no random searches and seizures, and the right to not provide evidence against one's self, and the whole innocent until proven guilty, and of course just good old fashioned freedom and liberty.

I'll bet I'm not the only one either...

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Yup. Another sad example of gross abuse of power by government... is there anyone who has not yet felt the heavy hand of government one way or another, to one extent or another? If there is, not for long.

originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

No one will have issue with this. But bring up drug testing people in order for them to receive their food stamps and housing income and watch how many people flip out.

Vaccinations have proven results. They increase quality of life, lengthen life, and save a whole bunch of money in costly medical care.

Drug testing people on food stamps does not have those results. If anything it has shown time and again that poor people can't afford drugs, and the costs of the testing cost far more than any fraud that's actually happening.

originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

No one will have issue with this. But bring up drug testing people in order for them to receive their food stamps and housing income and watch how many people flip out.

Its all the same...but you are right. The people will allow this, allow smoking related influence, fatty food restrictions, guns in the home...etc. Caffeine and alcohol will make them stand up and take notice. But rest assured, in the end what a socialist government will give back to you will depend upon how deeply your nose is up their asses.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Zerodoublehero

Because it has shown to be pointless and wasteful, the amount of people that actually tested positive didn't warrant the amount of money it took. How is that tit for tat different than this tho?


Pretty sure the people down under wanted this, it wasn't some crazy move out of left field by the gov there.

Now lets play a game. How many ways can you modify this just slightly and make it even more disturbing? I'll go first with a few easy ones.

Ya lets play the slippery slope game!
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

What I suggest you remember...as an example is this. At one time, black people were discriminated against by even the government and the law as were gay people. They could easily have been targeted in the same manner by a socialist government at the time. So what you allow the government to target may be linked with your views today...but maybe not tomorrow. If you allow it to be done to ANYONE...you bear the responsibility when it is done to you. Because one day, your views will not be theirs.

originally posted by: madenusa
Millions and millions. A tidal wave of voices. All of which use sound bites as their opinion
This is all talk and no results. they can control the masses this way.
Example....................The evidence for 9/11-Truth was obviously left behind on purpose
WTC7 in broad daylight, tiny initial hole in the side of the Pentagon, the Operation Northwood's papers being "mistakenly released"
And people are supposed to see that the evidence was left behind on purpose.

Yet, most people believe the official story despite the fact that the government made it obvious not only that the buildings collapsed from controlled demolition, but also that the evidence for this was obviously left behind on purpose.

Even conspiracy theorists have a hard time with this obvious fact.
They leave behind the evidence on purpose, they make it obvious that they left behind the evidence on purpose, AND MOST PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY.
They have opinion makers and leaders on each side, supplying a few critical flashpoint incidents to create argument.
So, when creating propaganda, you try and create your own rebellion, to give natural born rebels the illusion of control.
That way, you secretly control both sides by creating an artificial war that hides away the main issue

A debate that will rage on forever with hardly any change happening.
As a society, we're basically begging for somebody to do our thinking for us!
As long as there's a vacuum of curiosity, there will be someone more than happy to fill in the blanks for us.

I think we agree. We are little but farm animals to our government and the controlling class. But since a human is slightly more intelligent than a cow, we are handled differently. While you herd a cow with a horse...you herd a human with product placement and what kind of tiles and music are used in the store. While you give a cow a sheltered area and food, you give a human television and a cell phone. The end result is the same however. We are livestock controlled, influenced and lied to in order to meet the goals of the government. We are given the illusion of freedom and choice when there is none. At least none of any consequence to the farmer.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Ladies and gentlemen...I give you the first, perfect example of the problem with the level of control government has over the people. Yes...children should be vaccinated against disease but no...we should not be treated like livestock. But, here you have "takers" (eg. people living off government/our money) who will not get said money unless they vaccinate their children, even if it is against their parent's beliefs. Textbook example!

News Story

Now lets play a game. How many ways can you modify this just slightly and make it even more disturbing? I'll go first with a few easy ones.

Vote democrat or loose your beer allowance.
Stop smoking or no ACA health vouchers.
Liberal schooling (indoctrination) or no student loans.

Liberilism or any other ism has nothing to do with it but then again perhaps richism has something to do with it.


This has already happened in Australia. It was trailed here and now its beginning to be rolled out all round the western world.

Get ready for 4-5 years later when its far to late to draw a connection between cause and effect and most of the vaccinated will have some things wrong with them that will cause many of them to die an early 'natural death.'

Sterilisation could easily be a feature of such peoples health.

After all, we know that welfare dependency becomes inter-generational so its best to put a stop to the breeding isn't it?

We are simply human resources to the government. They've even created whole governmental departments to manage us as resources. Didn't that give anybody a clue as to the direction we were heading---when the personnel department became the Human Resources Department? Didn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy to be a Human Resource?

ETA: I'll repeat my mantra from other threads---words have meaning. If we are too ignorant to know the meaning of words, we fail. Thomas Jefferson warned that we could not survive and prosper as a society without adequate knowledge.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

What I suggest you remember...as an example is this. At one time, black people were discriminated against by even the government and the law as were gay people. They could easily have been targeted in the same manner by a socialist government at the time.

Seriously?
A non socialist gov DID target both of them, so not sure what your point is here and what a socialist gov has to do with anything.
All you described was some sort of "lets not let the gov doing anything because one day they might come for you!" That same logic would have prevented the civil rights movements you speak of. Pretty ironic actually.
Also more if this than that and then using an extreme as the 'that'.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I'll simplify. If the people you give all power over you to decide you are a problem, you may find yourself not getting what you think you deserve. If you don't vote as they wish, or if you speak out against them, you may find your benefits tied up, late on non-existent.

You know...much like the IRS targeting groups the left doesn't like. Now the IRS enforces healthcare fines, etc. Maybe next time, these individuals will lose their insurance...even though they have paid into it. Just an example.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

If the people you give all power over you to decide you are a problem, you may find yourself not getting what you think you deserve.

That's fair, but that isn't what they are doing down under. You are still taking things to the extreme using a slippery slope fallacy.
What they did was what they people wanted, that is what the gov is for. Sorry you don't agree, don't move to Aussie and you are fine.

You know...much like the IRS targeting groups the left doesn't like. Now the IRS enforces healthcare fines, etc. Maybe next time, these individuals will lose their insurance...even though they have paid into it. Just an example.

K, keep using manufactured 'scandals' as your points.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

What I suggest you remember...as an example is this. At one time, black people were discriminated against by even the government and the law as were gay people. They could easily have been targeted in the same manner by a socialist government at the time.

Seriously?
A non socialist gov DID target both of them, so not sure what your point is here and what a socialist gov has to do with anything.
All you described was some sort of "lets not let the gov doing anything because one day they might come for you!" That same logic would have prevented the civil rights movements you speak of. Pretty ironic actually.
Also more if this than that and then using an extreme as the 'that'.

I'd suggest you read a bit of history. Dr. Walter Wiliams has an excellent article here on the Progressives and their racial prejudices, showing plainly it was the Progressives who discriminated against blacks.
hosted.verticalresponse.com...

The Progressive Era is generally seen as the period from 1890 to 1920. President Woodrow Wilson, a leading progressive, had a deep contempt for the founding principles of our nation. Progress for Wilson was to get "beyond the Declaration of Independence," because "it is of no consequence to us." President Wilson implored that "all that progressives ask or desire is permission -- in an era when 'development,' 'evolution,' is the scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine." President Woodrow Wilson was a believer in notions of racial superiority and inferiority. He was so enthralled with D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" movie, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan, that he invited various dignitaries to the White House to view it with him. During one private screening, President Wilson exclaimed: "It's like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." When President Wilson introduced racial segregation to the civil service, the NAACP and the National Independent Political League protested. Wilson vigorously defended it, arguing that segregation was in the interest of Negroes.

...

President Woodrow Wilson's predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, was another progressive captivated by the notions of racial inferiority. He opposed voting rights for black Americans, which were guaranteed by the 15th Amendment, on the grounds that the black race was still in its adolescence. Theodore Roosevelt said that "race suicide," a term coined by sociologist and eugenicist Edward Ross, was the "greatest problem of civilization." "The theory that races are virtually equal in capacity," wrote Ross in the journal of the American Sociological Society, "leads to such monumental follies as lining the valleys of the South with the bones of half a million picked whites in order to improve the conditions of four million unpicked blacks." The Progressive era gave birth to the "separate but equal" doctrine that emerged from the Supreme Court's notorious 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that symbolized Jim Crow racism. Progressives were also people who attacked free-market economics. Along with muckraking journalists they attacked capitalistic barons. They were advocates of what might be called "scientific racism" that drew from anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, eugenics and medical science. Popular books during the Progressive era included Charles Carroll's "The Negro a Beast" and R.W. Shufeldt's "The Negro, a Menace to American Civilization." A best-seller was Madison Grant's "The Passing of the Great Race," where he argued that inferior races were out-breeding their betters, leading to race suicide. Economist John R. Commons regarded blacks as immutably inferior therefore justifying slavery.

...

Legal scholar Richard Epstein concludes that progressivism sought to grant the state vast new authority to manage all walks of American life while at the same time weakening traditional checks on government power, including private property rights and liberty of contract, two principles that progressives hold in contempt. Epstein notes, "The sad but simple truth is that the Jim Crow resegregation of America depended on a conception of constitutional law that gave property rights short shrift, and showed broad deference to state action under the police power." It is clear that today's progressives have the same constitutional contempt as their predecessors.