It would be much easier without the insertion of capitalism/excess profit in the mix. The government can function if it were to set aside all of the lobbying and payoffs and if they were to work for the people that they supposedly represent. Unfortunately they tend to do things that dont make sense for no other reason than satisfying the debt they owe for the money given. The post office is a good example of this, in order to break the post office union bush forced legislation that made them fund retirement for the next 70 years (the people funded by it havent even been born yet) so having to do that they run in the red and are forced to close offices etc. this was not mismanagement it was simply a politically motivated blow to the unions. if people were to come off the idea that sharing with EVERYONE is a bad thing instead of clinging to the MINE MINE MINE philosophy that has been drilled into our heads, the government would be able to move forward with the kind of reforms necessary, like the affordable health care act, and can do so without a problem.

You have already been "taken over" by the government. You are controlled in every aspect of your life so why do you continue the argument of a tyrannical government? The US was not established as a democracy, but a constitutional republic which is governed by the golden rule....he who has the gold makes the rules. If you think that in todays US the government NEEDS to have its soldiers knocking on your door you are sadly mistaken. The second amendment was put into place at the time in case of invasion by foreign country (since we didnt own the country sea to sea) and has no practical use in todays society.

The main point was not that they didnt have the idea, but the success didnt come from them alone. Mitt Romney's rant about how "papa john started papa johns pizza" was as ignorant as it was irrelevant. Did Bill Gates build my computer? no, some factory worker did. Did he form the company that allows the OS to run? sure, but he didnt do it all alone. No one has built their business alone. There was someone behind you pushing you along, giving you the education you needed, building your road to drive on, actually building the product, shipping it, etc. etc. no one got there alone.

Of course not. By opposition you would have at the other end of the spectrum conservative republican, which while claiming they want smaller government claiming individual rights at the same time dive head first into the pool of religious fascism which is a the bigger controlling factor than our government has ever been. While some would claim that the use of larger government indicates a fear of freedom, it is in fact the opposite when considering that the freedoms that have been gained by many groups of people have been due to democratic government continuing to fend off the conservative movements to place those groups under their thumb.(women, homosexuals, african-americans, the poor, etc.) While one could look at larger government and claim that democrats need to be "taken care of", it is in fact the best way for society as a whole and not just the elite few. Freedom cannot be only for those who can afford it and so the use of larger government to ensure freedom for everyone. An alternative question may be "are conservative republicans afraid of freedom" especially since real freedom would end the oppressive rich/poor society and pull them away from religious dogma.

As I am assuming both group A and group B are both human, and in as much are both equal, both need the resources (basing it on the assumption you mean water, fuel sources, food etc.) it is perfectly acceptable for the government to realign the system for total equality. And since the gain of group A in your scenario is done at the expense of group B (through extortion, slavery, or manipulation of some other sort, why else would group A own 90%) then it is also acceptable to redistribute group A's "wealth".

As both groups should have had an equal advantage for the entire time, but through group A's manipulation through government they come out ahead of the game, as a collective it is owed to group B to help them to catch up with group A so that there is a combination, or group C which moves forward.

The only thing after life is death. There is no heaven or hell, or any kind of spirit released upon the world. You as a person will simply cease to exist.

It only causes racism in people who are inherently racist. By having dedicated times for a culture to celebrate/remember its history and how far it has come you are allowing not only for that culture to maintain its identity, but also to teach others about where it has come from and where it is now.

The affordable health care act is a giant step in the right direction in allowing all citizens regardless of pre existing condition access to health care. along with this it is moving in the direction to provide access to those who cant afford the over inflated cost of insurance providers, i think that eventually people will realize that a single payer system, or even a dual system (like in canada) would be the best way to go in america. while i do not think that the legislation is perfect, it is most definitely a step in the right direction.

Yes, there is some influence. Young people are bombarded constantly with messages of how to act, talk and dress through the use of television, movies and music. While I do not place "blame" on these medias (because it is the parent/guardians role to monitor and guide the children through the blitzkrieg of advertising) they are most definitely a factor. To illustrate my point you only need to look at how the manner of dress has changed ( more cleavage and lower waistlines are relatively new) this is not something that is inherent to dress, it does not provide the necessity of warmth, or even comfort in some cases. What it does do is bring out sexuality, by showing more skin and like a peacock flaunting feathers just says "look at me". The same argument can be made for the style of dancing, etc. And while music will always change, the more current lyrics are indicative of a society that encourages sexuality and the demeaning of women. So while tv and music are not entirely to blame, they are most definitely have to be placed at fault for the decline in the taboo of teen pregnancy and sexuality.

The same argument can be made in young peoples involvement in the committing of crimes. Without the guidance needed to make sure they have the understanding of how criminality is wrong. The teen will only have the tv or music to guide them. Seeing shows or movies, or hearing songs that glorify a criminal or drug influenced lifestyle without seeing consequences can only lead them to believe that it is ok to perform similar actions. This is not to say that it is the only reason, but it is most definitely a factor.

Yes....and no. There are some guns necessary, and I feel relevant. A hunting rifle used for just that, hunting, and for ranchers for example protecting livestock from predators is fine. I am not a hunter, but I do understand that many people still use this as a resource for their food, and as a means to keep overpopulation down so that disease isnt spread etc. Having said that, I also think that there is absolutely no reason for there to be a handgun in every home. Guns are made to kill. that is their only job. they are not like a knife that absolutely could kill, but has its function based in utility, not in death. Guns are only made to end a life (whether human or animal). I think that without having guns around you not only eliminate the accidental deaths associated, but also the intentional harm done with them. What would the outcome be if a person walked into a store intending on robbing it but now they are armed only with a club or knife. could they cause harm? of course. but with the ease of a gun..absolutely not. I have heard over and over again the argument "what if someone breaks into your home to harm you, you'd want a gun then" this is a fear tactic argument at best. if you dont have a gun (and based on an effective plan to eliminate guns) they would not have any either, and statistically you would be more apt to survive. I have heard that "if you outlaw guns only outlaws would have them" this would be true without the effective plan to eliminate them, but given time and the willingness to learn to live in a society without having readily available firearms, it would eventually come around to where no one had them. I think that when you are arguing a problem you have to look at both sides, and the pros of outlawing guns outweighs the cons in every sense.