Do you find this statement true?

I think that is exactly the motovation for the take over!

No. It is correct that 'anything follows from a contradiction', but that's only if the contradiction is true. In other words, if 'P and not P' is true, then anything follows. But the fact that a particular statement implies 'P and not P', does not mean that 'P and not P' is true. For example, 'it is false that P is either true or false' implies 'P and not P'. But this doesn't mean that every statement is true. It means that that statement is false. The whole premise of a proof by contradiction is that statements which would imply contradictions if they were true, must not be true. Basically I think the flaw in your reasoning is your interpretation of the phrase 'if a statement is false, then it implies a contradiction'. If A implies B, that simply means that IF A is true, then B is also true. It does not necessarily mean that either A or B is true. It's possible for both the contradiction, and the statement which implies it, to be false. If the contradiction is false, then we don't have to deal with the principle of explosion (the whole 'anything follows from a contradiction' bit) because that only applies where the contradictory statement is true.

It is part of a grand plan of total government takeover. i know it sounds ridiculous but if the things are going continues, it will be reallity in about 5 to 10 years. (maybe sooner).

First the Auto Industry. changing General motors to Government motors.

Then, Health care but your professor already explained that.

Smart Professor and yes i find it quite true.

no, he is only a history professor, he has nothing to do with healthcare.

we spent more on healthcare than any other nation in the world, with the lowest infant mortality rate, highest rate of death from preventable disease, etc. that is the real reason. if your professor is actually saying these things to kids, he needs to be spoken to, im tired of all of this, "o the government is coming for me" nonsense.

It sounds silly. Obama saw a need and used the HC legislation to try to meet that need. That's all that happened. If the R's had reasons not to vote for the HC bill those reasons were lost in a preposterous verbal assault: socialism, communism, government takeover, and the like. Romneyesque would be more correct.

Smart Professor

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. 2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. 3. You cannot help small men up by tearing big men down. 4. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. 5. You cannot lift the wage-earner up by pulling the wage-payer down. 6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. 7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. 8. You cannot establish sound social security on borrowed money. 9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a mans initiative and independence. 10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln

Well your highly Republican history professor only cares about control when the opposing party is doing the controlling.

Didn't hear much talk about the Constitution under Republicans when Bush was in office, and we all know he broke our own laws just about everyday.

No, especially since there has been no government takeover of health care.

There is no government healthcare in the US.

You still buy insurance from private companies.

A politician who doesn't want to control everything is something that doesn't exist.