[excon]

Hello Steve:

Yeah, he behaves just like your guys behaved... His schtick is essentially no different than those Republicans who accused the Democrats of wanting to kill Granny. There's more than a couple of those whackos.

excon

[ETWolverine]

So I guess you see no difference between being able to point to specific legislation and say "this is what the effect will be" and making stuff up out of whole cloth. Figures. When it's in your favor you see nothing wrong with it, and completely miss the double-standard.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Coming next for US government insanity?

Parents banned from watching their children in playgrounds

So now in the UK you have to approved to watch your own children?

[phlanx]

Coming next for US government insanity?

Parents banned from watching their children in playgrounds

So now in the UK you have to approved to watch your own children?

Salvo Speech,

This is where a system that is in place to protect people from peados is failing

We allow these people to walk the streets, and all the best intentions in the world we cannot stop them from being around kids, so now we alienate innocent people for the failure

So we are creating further problems by not solving the original problem

I think a convicted peado should be exculded from society, their crimes are such that most of us would burn them at the stake to make sure it never happens

As we cannot do that, the system has yet again gone too far and the checks and balances from the media should draw this situtaion back to normality

[paraclete]

Salvo Speech,

This is where a system that is in place to protect people from peados is failing

We allow these people to walk the streets, and all the best intentions in the world we cannot stop them from being around kids, so now we alienate innocent people for the failure

So we are creating further problems by not solving the orginal problem

I think a convicted peado should be exculded from society, their crimes are such that most of us would burn them at the stake to make sure it never happens

As we cannot do that, the system has yet again gone too far and the checks and balances from the media should draw this situtaion back to normality

It's the price of freedom and constitutional rights you can't stop peadophiles. It makes you wonder who actually wrote that constitution

[ETWolverine]

Salvo Speech,

This is where a system that is in place to protect people from peados is failing

We allow these people to walk the streets, and all the best intentions in the world we cannot stop them from being around kids, so now we alienate innocent people for the failure

So we are creating further problems by not solving the orginal problem

I think a convicted peado should be exculded from society, their crimes are such that most of us would burn them at the stake to make sure it never happens

As we cannot do that, the system has yet again gone too far and the checks and balances from the media should draw this situtaion back to normality

Planx,

This is EXACTLY what I meant when I said that government intervention, even for the best of intentions, tends to result in more problems due to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.

And what happens when the media is no longer acting as a check & balance to bad behavior because they are in lockstep with the government?

Sorry, but the media is not a protection from government intervention extremism. It is simply an outlet for whatever information IT DECIDES to pass on to the public (and whatever information the government chooses to make public through them). It's a business, not a police or government watchdog organization. It should not be seen as some sort of protector of freedom and democracy. The media cannot survive without access to government sources. It is therefore beholden to the government. Because this results in a conflict of interests, they cannot be the government's watchdog.

Elliot

[excon]

This is EXACTLY what I meant when I said that government intervention, even for the best of intentions, tends to result in more problems due to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.

Hello p:

I couldn't agree with my right wing friend more...

Take Iraq, for example. It was an intervention done with the BEST of intentions, yet it turned out very badly. Afghanistan is another one. The drug war would be a yet a third example of how government action can go terribly wrong. Torture, too was taken on with good intentions, but with very BAD results. Don't forget that keeping gays from marrying, ostensibly, was taken on for good reasons, but the unintended consequences are dastardly. There's more, of course.

That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Don't forget that keeping gays from marrying, ostensibly, was taken on for good reasons, but the unintended consequences are dastardly.

I'm not exactly sure how a ban on gay marriage been has 'dastardly' but I'm sure you'll tell us.

[phlanx]

Salvo Chaps

Okay we all agree that government intervention usually has some bad results

But what is the alternative?

A democratic government has to set out rules and regulations as part of its make up - when something happens that effects peoples lives, the people hold the government accountable for that action

I cannot see any alternative but to allow givernments to continue with making such regulations

It is then up to the people to decide if these rules should, stay, go, or amend

Isn't that what makes democracy work for all people, a chance to have your say, to change policy and effect peoples lives peacefully?

[excon]

Okay we all agree that government intervention usually has some bad results

But what is the alternative?

A democratic government has to set out rules and regulations as part of its make up - when something happens that effects peoples lives, the people hold the government accountable for that action

Hello again, p:

Reagan said it best, and I'm paraphrasing here, when he said that the government that governs BEST, governs LEAST.

The problem was, he didn't follow his own advice. He used government force to mess around with all kinds countries and start all kinds of wars. Let me see, we got Granada, we got Panama, we got Nicaragua, we got Honduras, we got Iran... There's more, of course.

He, like some of his cohorts on this board, don't get that messing around in other nations affairs and starting wars, isn't even CLOSE to governing LEAST.

In terms of our rules, thank heavens it's NOT the government who sets them up. They're already set up in the Constitution, and it's government's job to follow them.

excon

[excon]

I'm not exactly sure how a ban on gay marriage been has 'dastardly' but I'm sure you'll tell us.

Hello Steve:

Let me ask you this... If the government took away white guys rights to own dogs, would that be dastardly for you?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Seeing as how we've now been warned our dogs contribute as much to global warming as an SUV I think they'd like nothing better than to do just that. But you know it's hard to take away a 'right' someone never had in the first place as is the case in most states.

But here's a deal for you, I'll agree the government needs to get out of the marriage business if you'll agree they need to get out of the "social justice" business.

[excon]

But here's a deal for you, I'll agree the government needs to get out of the marriage business if you'll agree they need to get out of the "social justice" business.

Hello again, Steve:

No can do.. The Bill of Rights is all ABOUT about social justice. And, I ain't NEVER going to give up my right to own a gun. You?

Oh yeah, there's a few other rights that the Bill of Rights mentions, so if I want to keep my gun, I guess I have to support the others too. I know. I know. Social justice, with the exception of guns, just don't turn you folks on too much. But, you can't be cherry picking your rights, you know, or you're liable to lose the one you like.

excon

[excon]

Seeing as how we've now been warned our dogs contribute as much to global warming as an SUV I think they'd like nothing better than to do just that. But you know it's hard to take away a 'right' someone never had in the first place as is the case in most states.

Hello again, Steve:

I'm just trying to get you to understand what it's like NOT to have a right that other people have? Maybe I was being to subtle. Or you know exactly what I'm talking about, and you know I'm right, but your right wing credentials won't allow you to say it.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

I'm just trying to get you to understand what it's like NOT to have a right that other people have?? Maybe I was being to subtle. Or you know exactly what I'm talking about, and you know I'm right, but your right wing credentials won't allow you to say it.

No I'm not that dense and you know it. I made an offer but I knew you wouldn't accept because you DO think our constitution is all about social justice. You think the constitution supports coercing me into paying for someone else's health care, housing, food and children. You think the constitution is all about progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth and property. See you're OK with taking my stuff to give to someone else regardless of whether they're deserving or not but you're not OK with taking away a right someone never had. And you think we've drunk the koolaid.

[phlanx]

Hello again, p:

Reagan said it best, and I'm paraphrasing here, when he said that the government that governs BEST, governs LEAST.

The problem was, he didn't follow his own advice. He used government force to mess around with all kinds countries and start all kinds of wars. Lemme see, we got Granada, we got Panama, we got Nicaragua, we got Honduras, we got Iran.... There's more, of course.

He, like some of his cohorts on this board, don't get that messing around in other nations affairs and starting wars, isn't even CLOSE to governing LEAST.

In terms of our rules, thank heavens it's NOT the government who sets them up. They're already set up in the Constitution, and it's government's job to follow them.

excon

I don't understand one thing, as a veteran yourself, as I have have never served, I need an explanation

If the armed forces are trained to fight, it isn't it right to send them into combat to fight for what the country sees are its interests?

I seem to rememeber the uproar caused when our maggie let your man, send in the bombers from the UK to take out gadaffi, I also seem to remember that gadaffi has been very quiet ever since and is today trying to make paths to join the rest of the world

Who decides a war is in the peoples best interest if it isn't the government - I ask, as I accept whether they are right or wrong, a government has to go to war at times to protect its interests and citizens, and I am intrigued how you and your consititution sees it

[phlanx]

No I'm not that dense and you know it. I made an offer but I knew you wouldn't accept because you DO think our constitution is all about social justice. You think the constitution supports coercing me into paying for someone else's health care, housing, food and children. You think the constitution is all about progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth and property. See you're OK with taking my stuff to give to someone else regardless of whether they're deserving or not but you're not OK with taking away a right someone never had. And you think we've drunk the koolaid.

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

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

[phlanx]

Planx,

This is EXACTLY what I meant when I said that government intervention, even for the best of intentions, tends to result in more problems due to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.

And what happens when the media is no longer acting as a check & balance to bad behavior because they are in lockstep with the government?

Sorry, but the media is not a protection from government intervention extremism. It is simply an outlet for whatever information IT DECIDES to pass on to the public (and whatever information the government chooses to make public through them). It's a business, not a police or government watchdog organization. It should not be seen as some sort of protector of freedom and democracy. The media cannot survive without access to government sources. It is therefore beholden to the government. Because this results in a conflict of interests, they cannot be the government's watchdog.

Elliot

Salvo Elliot

There is some confliction at the moment between freedom of speech an dreporting in the media, and the freedom of parliament to discuss matters in private

I think we all have to agree that politicians have the right to freedomof speech and as such they have the right to discuss matters in private to understand a view point, which can lead to a politician making some strnage comments.

This I believe should not be reported, as it the reporting of which would not be a true reflection of the subject or beliefs of a politician

However, the reporting of official meetings, documentation should all be transparent, and where depending on one body is obviously not ideal, the transparency should be available for all to see and view for themselves

So if the system isn't transparent then it can be argued that it should be more so - again an improvement of the system rather than abandament

[ETWolverine]

Hello p:

I couldn't agree with my right wing friend more...

Take Iraq, for example. It was an intervention done with the BEST of intentions, yet it turned out very badly. Afghanistan is another one. The drug war would be a yet a third example of how government action can go terribly wrong. Torture, too was taken on with good intentions, but with very BAD results. Don't forget that keeping gays from marrying, ostensibly, was taken on for good reasons, but the unintended consequences are dastardly. There's more, of course.

That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.

excon

The part that Excon repeatedly seems to miss is that the War in Iraq falls under the Constitutional mandate for government to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic.

Again, for his benefit, the Constitution gives the government 3 responsibilities.

1) Protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic.
2) Maintain the infrastructure of the country (roads, tunnels, highways, bridges, mail, etc.)
3) Maintain an economic environment that is good for conducting business, producing goods and services, and accumulating wealth.l

The war in Iraq falls under #1.

Thus, where nationalizing health care reform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a bad form of intervention, the war in Iraq was CONSTITUTIONAL and a case of the government living up to its responsibilities.

Excon would prefer to ignore this because of his personal dislike of Bush and his general dislike for war. Unfortunately, ignoring it doesn't make the truth go away.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Salvo Chaps

Okay we all agree that government intervention usually has some bad results

But what is the alternative?

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.

A democratic government has to set out rules and regulations as part of its make up -

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.

when something happens that effects peoples lives, the people hold the government accountable for that action

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 cannot see any alternative but to allow givernments to continue with making such regulations

It is then up to the people to decide if these rules should, stay, go, or amend

Isn't that what makes democracy work for all people, a chance to have your say, to change policy and effect peoples lives peacefully?

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.

Elliot