Nobody can be right or wrong, objective facts don't exist, data doesn't count, and it's all about how annoying you sound when you make your points.

I'm tired of having to drag you through these things. There isn't a lot of point if I have to sit down and itemize every damn abstract connection in this process, making every thread five times longer than it would be if I didn't have to argue premises along the conceptual lines of "an elephant is larger than a hummingbird." I haven't even tried arguing from basic moral philosophical principles lately. Just sheer empirical evidence. Even that doesn't sink in.

Given the many examples of increasing statism I have posted about over the past year, if you don't see any threat at all of too much centralized authority over our lives, you're deliberately choosing to ignore it. I can't believe it's going over your head.

And please spare me the inevitable "how DARE you be so insulting" post. I've got quite a collection already. You don't want to refute the actual premises, so you argue the process. At least Buck tries.

Meanwhile, we continue forward with Federal control of the health care system which, of course, has nothing whatsover to do with centralized authority having control over our lives.