Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

You know speech, chances are if we all got together and had a beer, we would all enjoy each others company

---

It's funny, but I've said that to ex many times over the years.

Quote:

---

However, when you make statements like that, it is stereotypical of what the rest of the world sees America for

You probably are not heartless, but when you concern yourself with self interest without any care for your neighbour let alone a foreigner, are you then surprised that the US had become targets to extreme Islam

---

That's just it, the stereotype is wrong. It's not that we don't want to help others, we just don't believe more government, more taxation and fewer rights is the answer. It's been pointed out here many times that the US is by far the most generous nation on earth, both privately and publicly, and the hypocrisy is thick on the left for chastising us for not helping our neighbor when the records show liberals are the most miserly among us. They're all about taking my money to give to someone else - with little regard for helping them stand on their own two feet - and I'm all about helping others out of my own free will and generosity while helping them help themselves. The other difference between us is we see what we do for others as between us and them, they like to spread their tailfeathers and boast of their own 'generosity.'

And then there's thing called our constitution which is entirely about limiting government, empowering the people and specifically enumerating government powers. Ex's way disregards the very foundation of this country, and when the feds take my stuff away I won't have anything left with which to help someone else. Charity by compulsion and coercion is not charity and keeping someone bound to the nanny state's apron strings is not freedom.

So then speech, what it comes down to is the fact that the state has not provided a suitable service for the taxes it has taken

The charitable donations which elliot just loves to state to me are certainly generous but they haven't led to the alleviation of social issues

If everybody agrees that social issues are problem and need to be addressed, then how would you go about it

Please consider that regulations have arisen due to the donations not working either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

If everybody agrees that social issues are problem and need to be addressed, then how would you go about it

---

I have already responded to this question in another thread. What I wrote was...

Quote:

---

Well, one way would be to revamp the education system in this country and eliminate the monopoly that the UFT, AFT and NEA have over education... open up more charter schools and allow school vouchers so that everyone can get the education they want/need, instead of forcing them into a failed school system that isn't educating them.

Second, you stop wiping their noses and @sses for them. You stop giving them EVERYTHING. You place time and dollar limits on welfare programs. You eventually cut them off and tell them to get a job and stop leeching off society. If a person is physically capable of a job (ie: he's not crippled beyond the ability to work, he's of the age of majority, and he has no mental illness or developmental illness) then he should be forced to get a job.

In short, the way you teach people to do for themselves is to slowly start forcing them to do for themselves.

It's no different from teaching your own children to become independent... slowly, over time, you grant them their independence and stop supporting them for everything in their lives.

---

You address social issues by getting people to be able to fend for themselves, not by giving them a greater incentive to become reliant on the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The alternative is what I have been talking about for the past several weeks with you... limiting the power of government, and making sure that the only things they do are the things enumerated as their responsibilities in the Constitution.

---

I am sure you can appreciate but the finer details of your constitution are unknown to me, I am hoever discussing the fundamentals of what a democracy is

You state, AND MAKING SURE - Who makes sure, what authority do you have to speak on someone's behalf, who checks your checks?

Quote:

---

That's an assumption. Because government has always made the rules, we assume that that is the way it is supposed to be. I question that assumption. I CERTAINLY question whether the FEDERAL government has that power, as opposed to the state and local governments, given the 10th Amendment.

---

Again, finer details here. Before Givernment was Monachy, Despotism, Diarchy etc etc

There as always been, and always will be someone on the top, this is how any human social group works, a structure of belonging. If there was nobody there to take instructions or to instruct we would have chaos. As regards making the rules, who else would make the rules? It is a ponder that you still think industry can be mature and repsonsible in its actions

Just as you state your consititution has checks and balances on the people in office, companies need to be weighed and measured to make sure they are not found wanting

Quote:

---

Only because we have been trained to do so. There was a time that people took responsibility for their own lives instead of relying on government to fix their problems. My suggestion is that we go back to that way of handling our personal affairs.

---

I have no problem with this, especially as I can handle myself and the weak will certainly bow down to me! Come on, are you seriously suggesting that strong rule the weak, because that is what it sound slike there

Quote:

---

What makes democracy work is not having the government limit your rights and then force you to try to change it after the fact. Democracy works best when the elected representatives protect our freedoms BEFORE they are taken away from us. I reject this "reactive" concept of Democracy. True Democracy is PROACTIVE in protecting our freedoms and our rights. That is the very reason that the Founders sought to limit government power.

---

If your government was proactive, then it would be fair to say they would act to protect a persons right from being posioned due to poor quality control at a chemical plant

This would involve them making laws to make sure a company that failed to protect the freedom of the people and the company would be accountable for its actions

HANG ON, isn't that what happens already, a proactive government safe guarding the wealthfare of its voters against would be attackers both foreign and domestic

I still not see how you can have a fair system for all people while at the same time allowing companies to self rule, which they have demonstrated time and again to be ruthless, not all but the minority often spoil it for the many

Page from history for you

Back in the 1700s in England, it was common for the people to drink gin instead of water

This was due to clean safe drinking water was not always available and often expensive

However Gin was cheap and in terms of bacteria safe to drink

All of which led to social problems, a great way to explain this is the picture Beer Street and Gin Lane http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d-Gin-lane.jpg

The situtaion was getting worst and social order was breaking down

So the government introduced a tax on Gin which led to regulations for the improvement of drinking water

I am not saying that what the government did was as simple as that, but for me I am happy to drink tap water instead of gin!

Is this really what you wish to go back to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

You address social issues by getting people to be able to fend for themselves, not by giving them a greater incentive to become reliant on the government.

---

And as I have said the repsonsibility of the fortunate is to safe guard the misfortunate - I am all for teaching someone how to fish, but you need something in place to ensure that occurs, and your system of government it does not, it allows the strong to use the weak to their own ends - or has history just passed you by completely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

And as I have said the repsonsibility of the fortunate is to safe guard the misfortunate - I am all for teaching someone how to fish, but you need something in place to ensure that occurs, and your system of government it does not, it allows the strong to use the weak to their own ends - or has history just passed you by completely?

---

Steve, when people over here discuss the "poor" and downtrodden they are referring to people who in large part have 1 or 2 cars, several TV's, cable, internet, cell phones and their kids wear $100 Nikes. A good portion of them own their own homes as well, so until we narrow the discussion to those who really are misfortunate we'll never get anywhere. For those we're all agreeable to providing a government safety net.

That's not good enough for the left in this country, they want everyone (except them) dependent on government from cradle to grave. It's a cultural problem, it's a mindset that's been carefully cultivated by the left for decades mainly through the education system and promoted in the media. Liberals dominate - and I do mean dominate - both institutions by huge majorities. That's why I would begin the same place Elliot would, in education. Not only eliminating the liberal stranglehold but getting the federal government out of education altogether. Teach our children once again to be hardworking, independent, responsible citizens and as Elliot said, stop wiping their noses and @sses for them.

For those who really need the help, let's help them, but stop telling everyone they're entitled to whatever the heck they decide they're entitled to and stop taking mine and Elliot's money away from us to to give to people who darn well don't deserve a handout to reinforce that mindset.

Quote:

---

The charitable donations which elliot just loves to state to me are certainly generous but they haven't led to the alleviation of social issues

---

It is my view that most charity is misdirected . I think "greedy capitalists" like Paul Polak ,founder of International Development Enterprise (IDE) do more to help the poor worldwide with his business model than all charities public and private combined.
What does he do differently ? He treats the poor as consumers and enterpreneurs .He believes that's the best way for the poor to achieve self sufficency. He sells affordable tools to the poor that they can use to work their own business . These tools include manual-treadle pumps to move water for irrigation during dry seasons , solar-powered water purifiers using ceramic water filters etc. Nurturing these markets will better serve the people than direct donations, financing large infrastructure projects, or relying on government initiatives.

He writes in his book Out of Poverty “The single most important thing they need to get out of poverty is to find a way to earn more money”...“This is so obvious that people tell me that it is a perfect example of circular logic. But the sad fact is that it isn't at all obvious to the great majority of the world's poverty experts.” Out of Poverty

Salvo speech

No problem on defining the definition of poor, I am talking about the people who do everything they can to sustain basic existence, that is food on the table, roof over their heads, and shoes on their feet, but still need help

Choosing between a 40" and a 50" plasma is not the poor I had in mind

I am in agreement with you on the education

When I employed a couple of teenagers in one of my valeting yards years ago, they were 16, just finished part of their schooling, and almost the first line out of their mouths stated they had rights

My reply to them was this, if you want money you will do as I ask, if you don't want to listen to me, then you can leave

The look on their faces was a peach, they weren't expecting a straight forward ultimatium - you want to eat, you work!

What I object to in elliots statement(s) is the out and out dismissal that government intervention is a bad thing

It is like everything else we have, a man made system which has flaws, your own consititution states that if the need should arise, changes can be made to suit the times in question

So my question to you is this, if the eductaion is so lacking, and the lobby has a full majority of backers for the eductaion system, why then are you and elliot in the minority?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Salvo speech

No problem on defining the definition of poor, I am talking about the people who do everything they can to sustain basic existence, that is food on the table, roof over their heads, and shoes on their feet, but still need help

Choosing between a 40" and a 50" plasma is not the poor I had in mind

---

Then we are in agreement so far. Time for that beer, but cold please... no warm beer for me ;)

Quote:

---

The look on their faces was a peach, they weren't expecting a straight forward ultimatium - you want to eat, you work!

---

Would love to have seen it for myself.

Quote:

---

So my question to you is this, if the eductaion is so lacking, and the lobby has a full majority of backers for the eductaion system, why then are you and elliot in the minority?

---

I don't know that we're in the minority and if we are, the tide seems to be turning. But for the main reason the Dept of Education still exists I turn to Reagan...

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.”

Well if you are not in the minority, and the majority speak, how come you have a problem with the eductaion system?

Death and Taxes mate, death and taxes, and the people who run them - so I see yours and reagans point of view

Just because something seems difficult to do, doesn't mean it is impossible

If the majority speak then surely the office will listen?

Or do you see democracy as I do - a way of giving the people a say without the need to listen to them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Or do you see democracy as I do - a way of giving the people a say without the need to listen to them!

---

That my friend is precisely how our government currently operates.

Hahahaha, that is how every democracy acts

Personally I would like to see a simple performance related pay brought into politics

I don't know about you or anybody else here, but if my company doesn't sell brakes, cars, and oil changes, I don't eat

For politicians, if they don't perform on their promises, they still eat

I think a government full of people who have to provide proof they are doing what they set out to, should then get paid, and not before, do you think the system would suddenly speed up and become leaner

Good concept, I'm just not sure how we would end up defining 'performance' for Congress. For me they perform best when in recess. :D

Hahahaha, I do love the fact that politian jokes are universal, so it is the game that we don't like not the players:D

I posted this somewhere before, but here is what needs to be done:

For every program passed by congress, the percentage of cost overrun should be determined. Then the pay of every senator and congressman who voted for it should be reduced by a corresponding percentage.

They would be working for free in short order!

Salvo Galveston

Now that brings their pay into line with bsuiness without the need to go for cheapest, purely deliver on time - I like that!!

The only problem is Congress will also be in charge of the math, a little "calculator abuse" if you will.

Afternoon Speech

I would say that in that case it is best to have an adisory committee to oversea it, however, following the events of the last week here I the UK and advisory panel on drugs advised against the political thought of the government and as such they fires the top advisor, others have resigned in protest, so yep great system, but yet again we see where political control will influence the outcome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

I am sure you can appreciate but the finer details of your constitution are unknown to me, I am hoever discussing the fundamentals of what a democracy is

You state, AND MAKING SURE - Who makes sure, what authority do you have to speak on someone's behalf, who checks your checks?

---

This requires the appointment of judges who are strict Constitutional Originalists. Which in turn requires the election of strict Conservatives to Congress. It is the judges, especially the Supreme Court Judges who are supposed to be the "check and balance" that prevents the creation of laws that are unConstitutional or that grab powers not actually granted in the Constitution.

Quote:

---

I have no problem with this, especially as I can handle myself and the weak will certainly bow down to me! Come on, are you seriously suggesting that strong rule the weak, because that is what it sound slike there

---

Where did you get that idea? What I was speaking of was taking personal responsibility for their lives instead of waiting and expecting government to do it for them. Where did you get the idea that that translates to the weak ruling the strong?

Quote:

---

If your government was proactive, then it would be fair to say they would act to protect a persons right from being posioned due to poor quality control at a chemical plant

This would involve them making laws to make sure a company that failed to protect the freedom of the people and the company would be accountable for its actions

HANG ON, isn't that what happens already, a proactive government safe guarding the wealthfare of its voters against would be attackers both foreign and domestic

I still not see how you can have a fair system for all people while at the same time allowing companies to self rule, which they have demonstrated time and again to be ruthless, not all but the minority often spoil it for the many

Page from history for you

Back in the 1700s in England, it was common for the people to drink gin instead of water

This was due to clean safe drinking water was not always available and often expensive

However Gin was cheap and in terms of bacteria safe to drink

All of which led to social problems, a great way to explain this is the picture Beer Street and Gin Lane http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d-Gin-lane.jpg

The situtaion was getting worst and social order was breaking down

So the government introduced a tax on Gin which led to regulations for the improvement of drinking water

I am not saying that what the government did was as simple as that, but for me I am happy to drink tap water instead of gin!

Is this really what you wish to go back to?

---

First of all, can you find for me in the Constitution a requirement of government to regulate businesses for ANY reason? The government's responsibility is to maintain a free market environment, not limit that market in the name of "protecting society". A healthy society protects itself. It doesn't need government to do so.

As for the water argument you put forward, the maintenance of a healthy water supply falls under the government's OTHER responsibility for maintaining the infrastructure of the country. On the other hand, taxing or otherwise regulating gin-manufacturers or purchasers of gin for the purpose of doing so would be outside their authorities under the Constitution.

So the maintenance of a water supply would be a requirement of the Constitution. I've got no problem with that.

Elliot

In my opinion, voting day should be moved from November to April 16th, the day after tax day. That way people would vote based on the amount the government has taken from them in taxes.

This would create an incentive for our elected officials to limit the amount they take from us to the barest minimum in order to get re-elected.

At the very least, it would give us a greater sense of satisfaction when we pull the lever for the OTHER GUY when we vote.

Elliot

Salvo Elliot

You still think that a document written 200 years ago could forsee the dangers that's its own people would inflict on themselves

They left it open so that the document was open to be added and subjected from when and where necessary

You didn't understand the Gin argument did you - The picture depicts a soceity that has fallen to the preys of alcohol and as such are now such a problem a regulation needed to be inforced for its own protection, or do you think mothers so drunk they drop their own babies in the street is a society youwish to live in?

I am astonished that you don't see the need for a level of regulation to protect its citizens from rogue traders

I really hope you do remove all regulation from business elliot, as I would be the first to export Colonel Alex's Swine Flu Cure - I woiuld make a mint in days!

Quote:

---

I really hope you do remove all regulation from business elliot, as I would be the first to export Colonel Alex's Swine Flu Cure -

---

That would mean that you are competing with the gvt approved snake oil .

Does the Vaccine Matter? - The Atlantic (November 2009)

Salvo Tom

Hey competition is good and healthy, the product is not always of that elk :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

the product is not always of that elk :)

---

elk = animal

Do you mean ilk? Or were you being funny?

Salvo Wondergirl

I guess coming from the windy city you are not used to being that dry;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Salvo Elliot

You still think that a document written 200 years ago could forsee the dangers that's its own people would inflict on themselves

They left it open so that the document was open to be added and subjected from when and where necessary

---

No, I don't think they could have invisioned everything. But that is why the Founders created an Amendment system. Once an amendment is passed, it becomes as much a part of the Constitution as the parts written by the Founders.

If government, in its infinite wisdom (yes, I'm laughing as I type this) feels it necessary to change the Constitution to give them powers that they did not originally have, and if they have a compelling argument to do so, then let them Amend the Constitution legally with a 2/3 vote of both houses and every state.

If that was what the government was doing, I'd be OK with that. But that is NOT what they have done. They have simply taken on powers that are not legally theirs.

Quote:

---

You didn't understand the Gin argument did you - The picture depicts a soceity that has fallen to the preys of alcohol and as such are now such a problem a regulation needed to be inforced for its own protection, or do you think mothers so drunk they drop their own babies in the street is a society youwish to live in?

---

Well, we tried prohibition and that failed. We have been taxing liquor since it was legalized again in 1933, and that hasn't prevented the abuse of alcohol. Government regulation has failed to provide an alchohol-free environment. We have some of the safest water in the world, and THAT hasn't prevented the abuse of alcohol either. In fact, I would argue that there is absolutely nothing that the government can do to prevent alchoholism, alchohold abuse, public drunkenness, and injury/damage caused by alchoholism.

Quote:

---

I am astonished that you don't see the need for a level of regulation to protect its citizens from rogue traders

---

That's because you refuse to believe that people are smart enough to know a good product from a bad one.

Quote:

---

I really hope you do remove all regulation from business elliot, as I would be the first to export Colonel Alex's Swine Flu Cure - I woiuld make a mint in days!

---

Yep... you would. And then you'd lose it in weeks as people figured out that your product sucks, take you to civil court to sue you for damages, and win every penny you ever earned and ever will earn.

That's the problem... you think short-term, and you assume the worst of your fellow man. You assume that the smart ones are too dishonest to deal fairly with their fellow man, and the honest ones are too stupid to know a scam when they see one. And you assume that, as one of the smart ones, you'll be able to get away with selling a bad product in the long term for a net gain.

But people aren't that dumb, most of them aren't that dishonest, and you aren't as smart as you think you are. (No offense intended... NOBODY is as smart as they think they are when they come up with a scheme to defraud others. It wasn't a personal attack against you.)

The great equalizer in such a deregulated economy would be education. THAT is where we need to start reforming society. People need to be educated to take care of themselves and not rely on government to do it for them.

Elliot

Elliot

I don't think you have any appreciation of the type of people that exist in this world!

Which is surprising when you say you have worked in Israel and seen the lengths that some human beings will go to

Yes I agree that if you act stupid then stupid is what stupid does

However, I think you are being exceptionally niave if you think that people will not abuse a system that has no regulations governing

Why on earth do you think we have regulations giverning indistry in the first place - mmmm I wonder!

Why is it you can't understand history?

Why is you think people have freedom of financial choice at all times? Freedom of choice does not guarantee freedom of choice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Elliot

I don't think you have any appreciation of the type of people that exist in this world!

Which is surprising when you say you have worked in Israel and seen the lengths that some human beings will go to

Yes I agree that if you act stupid then stupid is what stupid does

However, I think you are being exceptionally niave if you think that people will not abuse a system that has no regulations governing

---

I think that it is naïve to think that the government is looking out for you.

Quote:

---

Why on earth do you think we have regulations giverning indistry in the first place - mmmm I wonder!

---

I've given you the answer to that several times now... the reason for government regulation is to grant the government more power, not to make your life better. The government, quite frankly, doesn't give a crap about you or me or anyone else. The only thing that concerns government is the accumulation of power.

Quote:

---

Why is it you can't understand history?

Why is you think people have freedom of financial choice at all times? Freedom of choice does not guarantee freedom of choice!

---

Actually I understand history quite well. And it is my study of history that leads me to believe that no government regulation has ever done anything to protect people... it has only managed to suppress and oppress people. This has been a common theme throughout history... the abuse of power by the government to oppress people. Exactly which part of history did you think I was misunderstanding?

As for freedom of choice, the one thing that I know for certain is that giving government more power only results in LESS freedom, including less freedom of choice. LIMITING government power may not necessarily result in greater freedom of choice, but it at least makes it POSSIBLE, whereas increasing government power ALWAYS does the opposite.

Elliot

I think you have no idea what I am arguing about, where do I say I expected the government to look out for me

You are putting words in my mouth again!

Quote:

---

I've given you the answer to that several times now... the reason for government regulation is to grant the government more power, not to make your life better. The government, quite frankly, doesn't give a crap about you or me or anyone else. The only thing that concerns government is the accumulation of power.

---

Now it is just funny - You think the government doesn't care about me yet you think businesses do - wow, how naïve can you get!

FREEDOM OF FINANCIAL CHOICE IS NOT FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

I am not referring to the regulations placed primarily by government but industry to - all of which means the product you buy doesn't contain some hidden chemical that is bad for you (as an example)

LIKE Lead in yellow Paint

The toy doesn't conatin anything sharp like Needles!

The drink doesn't contain chemicals that were introduced after it left the factory

The list is endless, I think it laughable you think you could make an educated guess and it would be a guess from a list of products that were manaufactured with no regulations

Yo surely cannot be as naïve as all that!

In addition, if everybody followed your example then who in hell would buy the product - assuming you are never the first person who buys first but waits to find out what the rest of the consumers thought - so WHO would buy the product under your regime?

I also want to bring us back to what makes you think regulations are government doing - it just isn't as simple as that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

I think you have no idea what I am arguing about, where do I say I expected the government to look out for me

You are putting words in my mouth again!

---

Not really. You are the one insisting that government regulation is there for the benefit of the public. I make no such assumption. In fact, I know it to be a falsehood, based on historical data.

Quote:

---

Now it is just funny - You think the government doesn't care about me yet you think businesses do - wow, how naïve can you get!

---

As I have said before, it doesn't matter is businesses are looking out for me. In fact, I am ASSUMING THAT THEY ARE NOT. In fact, I am assuming that the only person looking out for my interests is ME.

Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.

But that takes education, and it takes a government that forces businesses to do one thing and one thing only... label their products honestly. NO OTHER REGULATION IS NEEDED.

Elliot

Elliot

First of all, I had to write the cheques for my suppliers today, so please excuse me if I have come across to strong, I always get very annoyed with everything on the 1st of the month -kids are in bed and I have just had wee nip and feeling a lot more relaxed with the world!!

What I have been arguing against is your insistence that regulation in any form is bad, what you have been arguing against is you think I think all regulation is good

I actually think it is somewhere between

There is a clear reaon why rules and regulations exist in today's world

This need has arisen out of case after case of bad business and/or criminal activity that I believe the system is now at such a point that it is trying to avoid future bad cases and/or criminal activity

Of course this is an impossible task, and I agree with you that Governments should limit what they govern

However, in the land of marketing, you really need to check up what Honesty means - this is a decriptive word, and what one persons thinks is dishonest, another does not

Look, we both have the same idea of the world, screw or be screwed!

It is how we see other people that makes a huge difference, you see as you say, are only interested in you, I am on the otherhand have too much empathy for mankind to watch it continue in a society that thinks that today has no tomorrow, or freedom of choice is not freedom of choice for all in an unfair system

This does make me a socialist in anyway, I believe like you do, if we want something then we have to work for it

If we want to understand something we can sit down a read a book or two

But what makes you think that everybody in this world can do that?

I look out for a mate, he isn't the sharpest tool in the box but has the biggest heart, it just is how god made him, or he was dropped - can't decide which

He would not be able to make a wise choice if it landed in his lap, but as many people in his life have criticised him about his choices, it took me years for him to understand that when I gave him advice or explain something to him, he could always go and make the wrong mistake and I wuouldnt judge him for it, I would still take the mick, but that his choices are his to make, this has given him confort.

So now with him able to ask me questions and find out what is what and understand, he can make some of the right choices

This as you say is education, and we both agree on that issue

However, what happens to these people if there aren't people like myself looking out for them - should I allow them to live in a society that doesn't care

That's is the cornerstone of why I argue with so much matey, we have two opoosing views on life, you say the stupid should be educated and I never underestimate the stupidty of mankind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Elliot

First of all, I had to write the cheques for my suppliers today, so please excuse me if I have come across to strong, I always get very annoyed with everything on the 1st of the month -kids are in bed and I have just had wee nip and feeling alot more relaxed with the world!!!!!

What I have been arguing against is your insistance that regulation in any form is bad, what you have been arguing against is you think I think all regulation is good

I actually think it is somewhere inbetween

There is a clear reaon why rules and regulations exist in todays world

This need has arisen out of case after case of bad business and/or criminal activity that I believe the system is now at such a point that it is trying to avoid future bad cases and/or criminal activity

Of course this is an impossible task, and I agree with you that Governments should limit what they govern

However, in the land of marketing, you really need to check up what Honesty means - this is a decriptive word, and what one persons thinks is dishonest, another does not

Look, we both have the same idea of the world, screw or be screwed!

It is how we see other people that makes a huge difference, you see as you say, are only interested in you, I am on the otherhand have too much empathy for mankind to watch it continue in a society that thinks that today has no tomorrow, or freedom of choice is not freedom of choice for all in an unfair system

This does make me a socialist in anyway, I believe like you do, if we want something then we have to work for it

If we want to understand something we can sit down a read a book or two

But what makes you think that everybody in this world can do that?

I look out for a mate, he isnt the sharpest tool in the box but has the biggest heart, it just is how god made him, or he was dropped - can't decide which

He would not be able to make a wise choice if it landed in his lap, but as many people in his life have critised him about his choices, it took me years for him to understand that when I gave him advice or explain something to him, he could always go and make the wrong mistake and I wuouldnt judge him for it, I would still take the mick, but that his choices are his to make, this has given him confort.

So now with him able to ask me questions and find out what is what and understand, he can make some of the right choices

This as you say is education, and we both agree on that issue

However, what happens to these people if there arent people like myself looking out for them - should I allow them to live in a society that doesnt care

Thats is the cornerstone of why I argue with so much matey, we have two opoosing views on life, you say the stupid shoudl be educated and I never underestimate the stupidty of mankind

---

I think the last paragraph is the one that shows the difference between our philosophies.

I have worked with mentally challenged, Downs Syndrome, and other developmentally challenged children and adults. One thing that I have learned is that NOBODY is too stupid to learn. Some of the best decision-makers I have ever met were mentally challenged in some form or other... but they learned a METHOD for making decisions for themselves and they practiced it. Sometimes they made the wrong decisions, but they learned from those errors and didn't make them the second time.

I am fairly sure that your friend with the "simple" outlook on life that you claim "would not be able to make a wise choice if it landed in his lap" can learn to make decisions for himself just fine. It may take making bad choices and then dealing with the consequences of those choices in order for him to learn... but he can do it.

I believe that given the right education (and that means different things for different people) all of us can make good decisions for ourselves, and we don't need the government to do it for us. You believe that there are people who need protection because they are too stupid to learn. I disagree with that assumption based on my own experience.

BTW, just because other people think that your friend's decisions are bad ones doesn't mean that they aren't the best, most logical, most beneficial decisions for him. Your friend may have a different set of goals than others have, and therefore his decisions may be the ones most beneficial for his goals EVEN IF NOBODY ELSE SEES IT. Don't automatically assume that just because you would make a different decision that his decision is wrong.

I just don't buy the argument that people are too dumb to know what they want and what decisions to make to get it.

Elliot

More government insanity, Arizona Church Ordered to Stop Feeding Homeless.

Quote:

---

A judge ordered a Phoenix church to stop feeding the homeless on its property, citing zoning violation.
Related

Retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice Robert Corcoran ruled in early November that CrossRoads United Methodist Church in north Phoenix was functioning as a charity dining hall in a residential neighborhood...

The church has a 50-year history of feeding the homeless and caring for the poor in the community.

---

Granted, it wasn't just the judge who was a Scrooge but the community itself complained of having to deal with the homeless. No good deed goes unpunished in this country any more, just ask the boy scout who picked up trash in Allentown, Pa or the volunteer firefighters in Baraboo, WI who built sandbag barricades to protect Baraboo from record flooding. Isn't it a bit of a mixed message though for the president to call on us to "feed a neighbor" while the state is banning churches from feeding the hungry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

More government insanity, Arizona Church Ordered to Stop Feeding Homeless.

---

It never would have received any attention from a judge if the members of the community themselves weren't the cause of the action:

Quote:

---

But it was the very members of the community that raised concern about the church’s feeding ministry. Some residents complained about the homeless people wandering around the neighborhood, bringing trash to the area and cited fear of increased crime due to their presence.
“They broke into electric boxes and had their bikes and things chained up to fences, and set up camp right in our back yard,” said Talitha Cerino, who lives nearby, to the ABC News station in Phoenix.
“I don’t necessarily know that I would want to be walking down Central on a Saturday morning to see a parade of homeless individuals riding their bikes to get to their free meal in the morning,” Cerino said.

---

So it has nothing to do with government insanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Isn't it a bit of a mixed message though for the president to call on us to "feed a neighbor" while the state is banning churches from feeding the hungry?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Sure it is. But, since when did the Evangelical Christian community start listening to Obama? Seems like they take their marching orders from the likes of Pat Robertson.

Plus, as you pointed out, the DIS was the loving Christians complaining about the homeless people in their neighborhood... It has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with Christians NOT acting Christianlike.

excon

PS> You're really not blaming Obama for an Arizona court ruling, are you?? Really?? Is he also responsible for your bathroom stink after you use it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

It never would have received any attention from a judge if the members of the community themselves weren't the cause of the action:

---

Is there an echo in here? I said, Granted, it wasn't just the judge who was a Scrooge but the community itself complained of having to deal with the homeless.

Quote:

---

So it has nothing to do with government insanity.

---

You must have missed this, too: Retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice Robert Corcoran ruled in early November that CrossRoads United Methodist Church in north Phoenix was functioning as a charity dining hall in a residential neighborhood.

And then there was this from the article, The judge’s ruling is effective immediately and affects all Phoenix churches with residential zoning. There are at least 20 other Phoenix churches that provide food to the homeless and poor as part of their worship programs.

A judge ruling that all churches in areas zoned as residential can't feed the homeless has everything to do with government insanity. The ruling can only be supported by zoning ordinances, not a resident's complaint about homeless people.

Christians listen to God and His word in the bible. Matthew 25:40 here. Hoo raa for this church and those that feed the poor and homeless.

I did not read in the article, what religious denomination [s] , if any, of those in the community that complained?


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Sure it is. But, since when did the Evangelical Christian community start listening to Obama? Seems like they take their marching orders from the likes of Pat Robertson.

---

I doubt there are a lot of Methodists that take marching orders from Pat Robertson.

Quote:

---

Plus, as you pointed out, the DIS was the loving Christians complaining about the homeless people in their neighborhood...

---

I didn't point out any such thing, I have no idea whether this community's residents are "loving Christians" or any other kind of Christian.

Quote:

---

It has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with Christians NOT acting Christianlike.

---

I guess you missed that juxtaposition between Obama's call and the state's action here. I implied it was a mixed message - isn't it?

Quote:

---

PS> You're really not blaming Obama for an Arizona court ruling, are you?? Really?? Is he also responsible for your bathroom stink after you use it?

---

Again, you miss the point - willfully or not. I tend to think willfully.

Right, itb, there is no mention of who these community members are, what their religious affiliation - if any - may be. For all we know it could be a good, compassionate liberal neighborhood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

For all we know it could be a good, compassionate liberal neighborhood.

---

What a sad sad man you are indeed to harbour so much hatred for 50% of your fellow citizens.