Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ravells on November 15, 2003, 12:30:02 AM
-
This is a serious question and not a troll.
I don't understand why amongst many of the U.S. posters on these boards the word 'liberal' provokes frothing at the mouth and is used as a derogatory term. The dictionary definition of liberal is:
noun: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
noun: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
adjective: having political or social views favoring reform and progress
adjective: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
adjective: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
In the UK, that is pretty much what the word means. Is there some popular definition in the US of the word 'liberal' which means something else? What am I missing here?
Thanks in advance
Ravs
-
Ravels, to get a definition of an American liberal, take all your listed definitions and add " except when they don't conform to our views" at the end of each one.
Basically the Democratic party are considered "liberal" and most profess an open mind......as long as you agree with them.
A liberal in America has become defined by their actions, not the definition of the term.
-
Originally posted by ravells
What am I missing here?
Look up Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthy.htm) . The Republicans have just evolved to the next level of hate.
-
A good example of the Democrats ( Liberals) tolerence and open mindedness is going on right now.
The Liberals are blocking 4 judicial nominees from even having a vote for nomination, simply because these nominees do not conform to their views on religeon and abortion in their private lives. Real open minded of them.
The sad fact is that several VERY competent nominees, many minorities ( Libs supposedly for the minorities rights), have been blocked from a vote by a minority of Democrats......not because they are not qualified, but because they dont share the Liberal views on abortion and religeon.
Ted Kennedy, the bigest liberal of them all just had this to say about the latest, VERY qualified and respected nominees:
Kennedy told the Senate, "What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/14/182203.shtml
That somes up their attitude pretty much: block ANYTHING that they dissagree with. Hardly open minded or tolerant
-
Ah OK. So it's a word used in a party political sense and not in its wider sense?
Ravs
-
exactly
-
NUKE,
Nice distortion.
The Republicans blocked all but 9 of Clinton's judicial nominees. Even the outright moderates. In comparison the Democrats confirmed 85 for Reagan and 85 for Bush Sr.
Now that 4 radical nominees are being blocked by the Democrats the Republicans are crying foul and whining to the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional.
The definition of Conservative in America is "Blind, hating and hypicritical in the extreme".
-
Funny how they're complete opposites on different sides of the pond. When I was over there, it confused everyone pretty good when the locals and the Americans would start getting into political pub discussions.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
NUKE,
Nice distortion.
The Republicans blocked all but 9 of Clinton's judicial nominees. Even the outright moderates. In comparison the Democrats confirmed 85 for Reagan and 85 for Bush Sr.
Now that 4 radical nominees are being blocked by the Democrats the Republicans are crying foul and whining to the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional.
In what way are they "radical"?
Ted Kennedy called them "Neaderthals", can you give an example of them being radical? I thought Liberals had open minds and were tolerent of others views?
I see nothing but very qualified people being denied a vote by a minority of hateful liberals for the sole reason that they do not fit the "liberal" mold on abortion views and religeon.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Now that 4 radical nominees are being blocked by the Democrats the Republicans are crying foul...
One Radical Nominee: Janice Rogers Brown
Brown wrote the sole dissent in People v. McKay, 27 Cal.4th 601 (2002). In this Fourth Amendment case, defendant McKay sought to exclude evidence of drug possession that was discovered after he was stopped for riding his bicycle the wrong way on a residential street. The majority ruled against McKay and found the evidence admissible. Brown's dissent begins by noting that we must be extremely careful about giving the state the awesome privilege of search and seizure.
She believes in limiting search and seizure!
In Kasky v. Nike Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939 (2002), now before the Supreme Court, defendant Nike Inc. challenged the application of a California law prohibiting false or misleading advertising as a violation of Nike's free speech rights. In her dissent, Justice Brown disagrees with the majority's test for commercial speech because it focuses on the identity of the speaker and the intended audience rather than the content of the speech.
She believes in free speech!
In Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal.4th 472 (2000), Brown, writing for the majority, upheld California's Assault Weapons Ban, but only over equal protection, separation of powers, and due process objections, not against a Second Amendment challenge. However, she does emphasize that the California constitution contains no fundamental right to bear arms; indeed, she points out that the regulation of firearms has always been a proper police function of California. Evident in Kasler, as in American Academy of Pediatrics, is Brown's strong principle of judicial deference to legislative findings.
She believes in gun control!
Yep, pretty radical....and the demos oppose her? who's hypocritical?
:rolleyes:
-
Liberal vs conservative.
Good for democraty, both side watch eachother trying to keep each side of not beeing to much extreme.
the old weightstang principle.
But in here there is a little to many of the conservative, and the liberals get spanked.
But then again this is just a silly o`club forum tough, doesnt matter much.
-
I have a feeling whether appointments are approved or blocked has less to do with what the candidate stands for and more to do with 'horse trading' carried out in corridors and back rooms...
'I'll vote for your candidate if you...'
That's how this sort of politics usually works.
Ravs
-
Comming from norway, i dont even have a clue as to what a liberal realy is. Sounds like a bad word tho. Why is a democrat any better?
Are liberals kinda leftist in its policies and democrats on the right side, or what?
How many political partys are there in the US? just 2?
-
In terms of the political spectrum of the US, UK and Norway, Norway is virtually socialist in its social policy (and doesn't seem to have suffered unduly for it).
So a liberal would be right wing in your part of the world I guess..
Ravs
-
That cant be right..can it?
That would mean that all those "pro iraq folks" on this board are liberals....but still they bash the liberals?
In Norway the "pro US, pro iraq war" side is on the far right side of our political system, and those on the left side are against it.
-
Here is a primer Nilsen...
The prevailing thought is:
Liberal = Democrat, Conservative = Republican although there are shades of gray throughout the political theory and each issue is different for each individual. There are conservative, liberals, and moderates in each party.
Two parties dominate, Demos and Repubs, but the Green, Libertarian, Reform, and a myriad of other parties exist. We even have a Communist party.
One basic theory of what differentiates liberal thought from conservative is the role of government.
Generally, as far as the primary drivers of the social structure, the liberal view has a larger role for government than the conservatives like and the conservatives have a larger role for private enterprise than the liberals favor.
The conservatives tend to favor a greater role for church and tradition as restrictions on behavior of citizenry, where the liberals tend to favor a more lassie-faire approach to personal behavior and responsibility.
-
It confused me too, Nielson which is why I posted the question. When the Americans use the term 'liberal' they mean 'democrat' (as in political party).
Again, what I understand from this board is that the Republicans use the term 'liberal' as a derogatory term for democrats because they believe that the democrats wish to limit public freedoms and because the democrats only espouse liberal views when it suits them.
hope that clears up the confusion.
Ravs
-
Made more sence Holden.
That would mean, as i thought that the liberals would be considered leftist on our system.
The conservatives would be somewhere in the middle when it comes to the role of church and traditions.
However on the right side in our system conservatives would fit in because of they feel that private enterprise should play a bigger part and that the goverment should stay away from anything that has to do with the $$$.
Hmm.. Here in norway that would make me a "Republican", but I would have shared the "liberals" views on the war in Iraq (for the most part anyway), and on the religion bits.... Guess i would be somewhere in the middle when i think about it.
Are there alot of american Republicans that are against the war , or are they "all" liberals?
-
What really makes it intresting is you can run as a conservative, get into office and then grow the government and opt liberal issues, or,
run as a liberal, get into office, balance the budget, and opt conservative issues.
You can even say stuff like "I'm fiscally a conservative, but on social issues, I'm a radical marxist!"
Makes it fun.
-
It would be a safe guess that the mix is a larger percentage of Republicans favor the Republican president's policy than the percentage of Demos, but the specifics are very tough to gauge.
This running up on an election year, most politicos tell you what they think you want to hear than what is in their heart.
I think the voter mix is like 34% Demo, 32% Rep and the rest the 'Independants" It a pretty even split last I read.
I would guess that Republicans are at least 3 to 1 in favor, and Demos might be 60% against. GWB is right now about 50% on his approval rating.
-
Something is lost in the transatlantic translation. I am very much a southern England leafy retreat Tory supporter...
...and yet someone like Ripsnort calls me a "Liberal".
:confused:
-
Well golly gee whiz beetle, if Ripsnort says you're a liberal then it MUST be true.
-
The entire tone of the political rhetoric in this Country was set during the 8 year Republican attack on Bill Clinton. In essence they were incredibly pissed that he had the gall to use their own fiscally conservative ideas and combine them with a moderately liberal social agenda.
Drove them nuts to the point they would spend 40 million dollars to discover that oral sex actually happened in the White House.
-
ravel... maybe we do look at "liberal" as a political party. What liberal means to us is large, all intrusive government.
Liberal means socialism in this country and liberal means large government taking everyones wealth and redistributing it. Liberal means women and womenly men voting to to take away freedom in the name of security. In this instance the "home security act" is a liberal act.
"Progressive" often means.... throwing out the constitution. I do not want this brand of progressive. "protecting civil liberties" means taking away the right of a person to defend himself from criminals and governments. It also means giving one group rights that are above anothers simply because of their race or gender or sexual preference. I don't want that. Progressive means having the most ineffiecient and wasteful entity, government, run most of the things that they should stay out of.
Liberals want more and more government.. they feel that govenment can solve all problems. They are more than willng to make me pay for their scemes.
In short... I rarely see anything that U.S. liberals want that I want.
If any of those things are things that british liberals do then I don't see any difference.
lazs
-
For me as someone from the "outside", i think Bill Clinton was a better president than bush is. So what if he had som "fun" with the staff...that was a problem for him and his wife imo. :D
-
Unfortunately political "liberals" in the US do not match the dictionary definition of "liberal" that you provided. They would be better described as having an optimistic view of authoritarian power.
Hooligan
-
Thanks Lazs and Hooligan.
I am getting a much better feel about the associations that the word 'liberal' has now.
cheers
Ravs
-
yeah, I think so to ravells.
Now i know who to bash.
DAMN you stupid gd idiot liberals and democrats... :mad:
GO you...you.... inbetweeners !!!!! :aok :D
-
In my most humble unbiased opinion...
Conservatives want to deregulate business and regulate your personal life.
Liberals want to deregulate your personal life and regulate business.
-
Ah, but you guys are omitting the biggest connundrum of all!
When you appoint someone to a judicial bench, especially the supreme court, you never know what can of worms will be opened.
For example, California used to have an extremely conservative Republican governor who became a supreme court member. Remember him? Earl Warren? You do remember the supreme court judge who ushered in the biggest era of reformed politics in the US, right? And judges aren't political, are they? :)
Ravells, here's a much simpler explanation of the differences in the US. Liberals in the US have a wide range of political views and agendas. Conservatives are ex-liberals who were mugged in the past.
In the US, they're political labels (obviously) and anyone who says otherwise is smarting from a previous mugging.
curly
-
I don't want anyone regulating bussiness or my personal life. My personal life does not revolve around whether I get to smoke pot or not tho. It does revolve on if I get to drive hot rods, shoot and own and keep guns and sodomize my girlfriend... those are all my rights.
if I have to live without pot I can do that easier than all the other things.
lazs
-
Originally posted by ravells
I don't understand why amongst many of the U.S. posters on these boards the word 'liberal' provokes frothing at the mouth and is used as a derogatory term.
We have several Guns/Jesus/Trailer Park conservatives on this board who think that way.
-
I agree with Midnight target's assessment somewhat. However even though both major politcal parties are keen on regulating things that Government has no business regulating, and they both cross over into the others' territory frequently (i.e. a conservative Senator will happly "regulate" a company that is stomping businesses in his home state) the liberals show a much greater propensity to do so. Liberals cheerfully attempt to restrict all kinds of personal freedoms, free speech (non PC talk), firearms ownership, drug use etc. etc...
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
In my most humble unbiased opinion...
Conservatives want to deregulate business and regulate your personal life.
Liberals want to deregulate your personal life and regulate business.
Once again MT, you have hit the bullseye.:aok
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
For me as someone from the "outside", i think Bill Clinton was a better president than bush is. So what if he had som "fun" with the staff...that was a problem for him and his wife imo. :D
nilsen this may be an accurate veiw from the outside, and MT not all republicans got mad at clinton for getting head....
....what drives me to hate him is he lied in front of a federal grand jurry and got away with it...
....he cut military spending in half but increased deployments and commitments 300%...
...when roughly 18 US servicemen died in somalia he called them "insignificant losses" THATS A DIRECT QUOTE!...
these are just a FEW reasons
but I dont have an outright hatred for clinton like the democrats now have for bush. I'm also not one of those republicans that calls somone a traitor if they disagree with what this country is doing EVEN IN A TIME OF WAR.....(I just dont buy dixie chick albums). Yet for my simple "small government, lower taxes, pro life, non gun-control" views I'm considered a "Neo-Nazi"
thats just how I see it and I'm just one person!
-
Monty,
Trailer park conservatives? Do I detect a note of disdain in this reference to working class poor folks?
Be careful. Because of this insensitivity to the downtrodden condition of others, your liberalistic brethren may bounce you from their membership rolls.
MT,
The political tone of this country was set by the hatchet jobs on Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Before those events, both Democratic and Republican presidents' judicial nominees were routinely approved by the Senate.
By the way, I personally could not have cared less about Clinton's womanizing, except for the fact that it reflected badly on his home state. Events like the 700 FBI files on Republicans turning up at the White House WERE serious, and never got the play in the press that they should have. Don't try to convince me that Clinton wasn't capable of this kind of thing, because he did it, and got away with it, while he was governor of Arkansas. If you weren't outraged by it, then you need to do a little soul-searching. The list of his administration's unethical political machinations is lengthy and well documented. Quite a number of his idealistic followers wound up being the fall-guys for these distasteful escapades. There were too many of these episodes for them all to be so cavalierly dismissed.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Its abit worrying tho that Norway and Iran are the only countries in the world with a priest for a state leader :D
GO BEER !!
BOTTOMS UP!
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
MT,
The political tone of this country was set by the hatchet jobs on Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Before those events, both Democratic and Republican presidents' judicial nominees were routinely approved by the Senate.
Regards, Shuckins
Oh no. THings haven't always been rosey for Presidential SC nominees. At the Supreme Court level, presidents have made thirty-three of their 149 nominations when the opposition party controlled the Senate. [16] Of the thirty-three nominations, only eighteen were successful—a success rate of 54.5 percent. [17] This compares with a success rate of almost ninety percent when the same party controls the White House and the Senate (102 successful nominations out of 114 nominations). [18]
The tone was set by Newt and his gang of thugs.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
MT,
The political tone of this country was set by the hatchet jobs on Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Before those events, both Democratic and Republican presidents' judicial nominees were routinely approved by the Senate.
Regards, Shuckins
Oh no. THings haven't always been rosey for Presidential SC nominees. At the Supreme Court level, presidents have made thirty-three of their 149 nominations when the opposition party controlled the Senate. [16] Of the thirty-three nominations, only eighteen were successful—a success rate of 54.5 percent. [17] This compares with a success rate of almost ninety percent when the same party controls the White House and the Senate (102 successful nominations out of 114 nominations). [18]
The tone was set by Newt and his gang of thugs.
-
Why dont you get jimmy carter back... he is a smart fella..abit old, but still..
-
Originally posted by ravells
noun: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
noun: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
adjective: having political or social views favoring reform and progress
adjective: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
adjective: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
In the UK, that is pretty much what the word means. Is there some popular definition in the US of the word 'liberal' which means something else? What am I missing here?
Thanks in advance
Ravs [/B]
Sorry, in the USA, "liberal" literally means "How much can one tolerate".
P.S. Tradition is good. All the above descriptions can be found in both parties.
-
or they spent 40 plus million of my money to publicise a blowjob.
and other unproven or unimportant gossip.
your acting all patronizing is really funny.
im still laughin at you.
-
P.S. Dont mind me...im drunk again (http://forum.hardware.no/html/emoticons/wub.gif)
-
wasn't aimed at your post ripsnort. i dont speak to you as you are beneath contempt.
-
I guess Kennedy and his thugs do not count. Right?
By the way, how far back do those statistics you quoted run? As I recall, there was very little rancour between the parties over federal court nominees prior to the 1970s.
FDR made one of the most overt attempts at manipulating the nomination process for his own ends during the 1930s, when he attempted to get Congress to appoint several new judges so that he could weight the court with his own nominees. His own party recoiled over so blatant an attempt to manipulate the country's highest court.
Regards, Shuckins
-
What should i say to offend allot of folks here today? hint please ! :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
What should i say to offend allot of folks here today? hint please ! :D
Slam the Civil Rights bill that Johnson signed (The only good thing he did in office), that will piss 99.99 % of US voters off.
-
No fun Rip...
GO LIBERALS, Bush off you clueless dolts...Saddam has a cool haircut!
how is that one Rip? (http://forum.hardware.no/html/emoticons/woot.gif)
-
MT wrote:
The entire tone of the political rhetoric in this Country was set during the 8 year Republican attack on Bill Clinton.
WHAT?!
Your saying that there was no political rhetoric BEFORE Clinton?!
AND the whole Impeachment deal was only about a blowjob?!
GAWD! How delusional of you.
-
Liberals want to deregulate your personal life and regulate business.
Really? Why do I have to wear a seatbelt then? Why do people have to strap their babies into booster seats until age 4? Why do some states have mandatory helmet laws? Why are there smoking bans in public buildings? Whose idea was it to have city-wide smoking bans in privately-owned restaurants and bars?
-
"Liberal" tends to be a dirty word amongst most of the US population because it can also be spelled "Hypocrite."
-
I suspect the liberals think that way about the conservatives too.
So....no solution there.
-
thanks revells saved me the time of reversing the sentence.
most of the us population is democratic handsomehunk.
remember last pres election 410,000 more libs than republicans voted and still lost, also please tell me dems are more likely to vote. the party loves you and will take care of you keep spouting crap the party elete will give you power and position.
fool.
-
yep... disdain for anyone who is not as smart or who is religous or even.... lives in a trailer... liberals love humanity but hate people.
kieran and hooligan summed it up. most of the "for your own good cause you will hurt yourself" laws are liberal ones but not all... the conservatives get in a few too.
libertarian is the only sensible way to be but it takes too much courage for most.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... disdain for anyone who is not as smart or who is religous or even.... lives in a trailer... liberals love humanity but hate people.
kieran and hooligan summed it up. most of the "for your own good cause you will hurt yourself" laws are liberal ones but not all... the conservatives get in a few too.
libertarian is the only sensible way to be but it takes too much courage for most.
lazs
Interesting and illuminating thread. I had considered starting one similar as the dictionary definitions did not match the perceptions of the conservatives on this board.
That comment of Lazs is quite true. 'liberals love humanity but hate people'. I saw a similar comment in a newspaper here in Dublin where the columnist said the 'conservatives hate liberals but that's OK as liberals hate themselves'.
He went on to say that the neo conservatives in America nowdays are in fact closer to the radical liberals because they want to change things, ie depose dictators, reform laws etc. That's liberal territory. He pointed out that the real conservative doesn't want to change anything just sit tight and hold what they have.
The problem with being a true conservative or liberal is that anyone to the left or right of you, respectively is either a commie or a fascist.
The truth is that the best approach is the centrist. I'm a centrist so I take bits of conservativism and bits of liberalism and make up my own mind. I suspect most of us here exist somewhat in the middle. The west in general including America is ruled by the moderates and long may it continue. Bush is in fact more of a moderate than a conservative and despite popular caricuture is in fact a shrewd and intelligent man who avoids one extreme or another. He knows as most of us do that any wide drift to the right or left would rapidly become unpopular with the American people and is to be avoided. Clinton knew this too as did most American presidents.
So up with the CENTRISTS and down with the liberal/conservative alliance. ;)
-
cpx... It is funny about hate and liberalism... liberals invented "hate" crimes and consider free speech to be a hinderance to their agenda... they invented politicaly correct speech and threw out free speech in the name of their agenda... they threw out rights in the name of their agenda... defending yourself became a "privilage" and not a right.
What is funny is that I, the conservative who is suppossed to "hate".... I am the one who trusts my neighbor but distrusts large government... the so called lovers of humanity... the liberals... they don't trust their neighbors and can't embrace orwells 1984 soon enough...
lazs
-
I agree almost entirely with cpxxxx's post.
The reality of the situation is that we all know that 'freedom for all' (ie. a society without law) is just a pipe dream because the moment that happens, someone abuses their freedom and takes it away from others.
That's just human nature.
Ravs
-
I am not a centrest... I am at most... at libertarian... I believe that the absolute minimum amount of government control and power is just a little too much.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
thanks revells saved me the time of reversing the sentence.
most of the us population is democratic handsomehunk.
remember last pres election 410,000 more libs than republicans voted and still lost, also please tell me dems are more likely to vote. the party loves you and will take care of you keep spouting crap the party elete will give you power and position.
fool.
Speak English.
Lazs hit it pretty well as far as Im concerned - how can a Liberal - the champian of humanity - call someone else a fool?
Which face am I talking to here?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not a centrest... I am at most... at libertarian... I believe that the absolute minimum amount of government control and power is just a little too much.
lazs
Maybe, but I think in that society you would need your guns. That political philsophy is actually anarchy in it's pure form. LOL!
To quote one of their crazy websites Thus anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, a.s.o., means coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. [/B]
lazs2 the Anarchist or more accurately an individualist anarchist (or "anarcho-capitalist) to differentiate him from bomb-throwing radicals and left-wing, anti-property anarchists. Would that be a fair description?
For most of human existence, 'government' meant whatever local warlord held sway in your locality. He in turn paid homage to the warlord in your province etc etc. If you are that warlord or one of his cronies you are a conservative seeking to maintain the status quo as it were. Democracy doesn't come into it.
As someone once said 'The only rights and freedoms you have are those others allow you to have'. Those others may be the government or whoever has the biggest stick locally.
Saddam Hussein was a good example of warlordism gone mad.
-
yep.. I am an individualist and a property rights kinda guy. My brand of libertarianism is not anarchism. I believe that government is evil but least evil when it protects rights. Your rights should not infringe on your neighbors.... owning guns or saying the word "******" does not infringe on anyones rights or freedoms but robbing at gunpoint or moving a pig farm next door to you does for instance.
eddit... it seems that the deragatory word for black folk is not allowed here... that is fine tho since it is a privately owned and controled BB... I would not make any law against it tho.... for example.
lazs
-
I'm a liberal. my view of human nature is such that i believe fear of death is a deturant only when it is excersied. some humans are predators and rather than spending huge amounts of my cash preserving them to die horribly. i believe killing is kinder call me crazy but it works.
oh and screw gun control.
but national health care is a inevetable forgone conclusion.
I'm still a liberal. go figure.
-
Haven't been in here for a read in quite awhile. Must say this is the most civil discussion of opposing views I think I've ever read in here.
Good show.
What I see in the USA from my small corner of it is this. Everyone is born a liberal, as they get older they slide to the conservative side.
By definition from my view a conservative in the most basic sense, is taking responsiblity for one's own actions with a minimum of goverment intervention. In business, what you earn, what you create for you and those you employ should not be penalized if you do well.
My view of liberals in the USA sense is this. It's a two tiered equation. More goverment is good. Taking care ( supporting ) bad individual decisions makes liberals feel good. The "little people" don't know what's good for them, but in our goodness we will provide it.
The two tier equation comes in where the liberal stating the mantra is far removed from having to pay for the cost. That is left to the "little people". Every effort is made to have the people remain "little" They will let you feel good about yourself tho..
Where one philosophy inspires individual accomplishment and goals and structures itself not to be a hinderance, the other strangles it in the name of "goodness"
The Ivory tower comes to mind. Long live the "little people" For with them the tower will remain.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
or they spent 40 plus million of my money to publicise a blowjob.
and other unproven or unimportant gossip.
your acting all patronizing is really funny.
im still laughin at you.
:eek: :eek: Since when are blowjobs unimportant? Somebody got you p-whipped?
-
We don't have too much government. Perhaps what we have is misguided or perhaps money is ill spent, but folks, we have serious problems.
Today isn't like the 40s-50s-early 60s. We have situations where a small number of folks can create havoc.
1. One individual can disrupt network activities world wide.
2. A small group of individuals can easily terrorize a large country with lax border controls. The things that one can do ...
a) dynamite dams above cities,
b) botulism in the water supply,
c) infect one of Allah's chosen with pneumonic plague (or a virulent form of smallpox or ebola or whatever) and turn him loose in LA/NYC/DC/.
d) borrow some plutonium from Iran and set off a small nuke in London/NYC/Paris/Berlin/where ever
e) park a truck load of fertilizer in front of somone's house
and etc.
3. Corrupt police departments in all cities, all states and all countries as near as I can tell.
4. Corrupt political systems where political actions are controlled by special interest groups.
5. Inadequate controls on companies who have become so rich by the sale of their products/services, they are completely lacking in morality. They have lost sight of their original vision and will literally do anything to maintain the status quo.
6. And so on. Hell, the list is endless
The problem isn't that we have too much government. It's that our government is struggling to be effective.
I honestly believe the American political process will resolve all of the above. The cost will probably include throwing out all current political parties and find some new and acceptable solutions.
I suspect the changes will be so radical that many will label it revolutionary.
You rugged individualists are so full of it, well it boggles my mind. Here we have guys who have struggled through life, conquering all of the nice little problems that occur.
What have I seen all of us worry about? Divorce, alcoholism, drug addiction(other than alcohol), deaths?
And now that you've conquered your demons, you want to pretend that you did it by strength of character. Bull! If you had any character, the problem wouldn't have happened in the first place!
You acquired character only after you hit rock bottom and someone gave you a helping hand.
curly
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
I'm a liberal. my view of human nature is such that i believe fear of death is a deturant only when it is excersied. some humans are predators and rather than spending huge amounts of my cash preserving them to die horribly. i believe killing is kinder call me crazy but it works.
oh and screw gun control.
but national health care is a inevetable forgone conclusion.
I'm still a liberal. go figure.
You havnt said one word other than I'm a Liberal that actualy says you're a liberal aside from the health care. Besides a dweeb, I'm not sure what you are. Aside from the health care all of those are conservative Ideals
-
Curly wrote:
We don't have too much government. Perhaps what we have is misguided or perhaps money is ill spent...
Our government's legitimate functions (as enumerated by the constitution) make it its business to deal with criminals, terrorists and war (i.e. the stuff you first mention in your post).
However I don't see how seatbelt and anti-smoking legistation have anything to do with preventing small groups of individuals from creating havoc.
As far as the government poorly using the resources we give to it. Of course they do; everything they touch turns to crap. The obvious solution to this is to give them less money to waste. I can't name one thing they do better than or even anywhere near as well as private industry. No doubt the armed forces are horribly inefficient also, but fortunately there is nothing like a free market where private armed forces hone their skills so the only armies ours have to fight are similarly crippled by being government bureaucracies. God help us if we had to defend ourselves against an armed force as well run as Toyota.
I am pretty sure that I DON'T want the guys who run the DMV and postoffice to have anything more to do with my healthcare. And it boggles my mind that anybody would.
The Department of Education, Department of Energy, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Bureau of Indian Afairs and about a billion other federal agencies are expensive and harmful. I'd just as soon be rid of them.
Thank god they waste most of the money we give em. Thank god we don't get all the government we pay for!
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
However I don't see how seatbelt and anti-smoking legistation have anything to do with preventing small groups of individuals from creating havoc.
If someone wants to smoke and ultimately kill himself, I am all for it. I wish it would kill them while they are in their teens since it would have a positive effect on the gene pool.
However, the effects of second hand smoke are well documented now and no one has the right to hazard the health of others.
As far as the government poorly using the resources we give to it. Of course they do; everything they touch turns to crap.
Nah, not so. It's certainly true the government has become more unwieldy since Eisenhower's days, but the general trend is positive. Too bad the government isn't like Microsoft, eh? They made a fortune from producing crap.
The obvious solution to this is to give them less money to waste. I can't name one thing they do better than or even anywhere near as well as private industry.
You can't? Man, I can! Industry is unable to police itself and prevent the sale of DDT; Industry is unable to guide itself away from monopolistic practices. Industry (in Europe) was unable to police itself when it comes to safe drug policies (remember thalidomide?) Good grief, Hooligan, the thought of corporate thugs on the loose is worse than Saddam on the loose.
No doubt the armed forces are horribly inefficient also, but fortunately there is nothing like a free market where private armed forces hone their skills so the only armies ours have to fight are similarly crippled by being government bureaucracies. God help us if we had to defend ourselves against an armed force as well run as Toyota.
Ya think? Are you familiar with the history of WW2? You familiar with Alfred Loomis?
I am pretty sure that I DON'T want the guys who run the DMV and postoffice to have anything more to do with my healthcare. And it boggles my mind that anybody would.
Simple solution there, feller. Pay for your own health care and you will have no worries.
The Department of Education, Department of Energy, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Bureau of Indian Afairs and about a billion other federal agencies are expensive and harmful. I'd just as soon be rid of them.
I've never claimed to be wise enough to think that I could devise an effective and efficient government. If you really believe everything in the above paragraph, Hooli, I would encourage you to emigrate. Palestine comes to mind. You won't be troubled with government intervention at all.
curly
-
Thank you for putting the argument forward so much more eloquently than I could, Curly.
The danger in all of this is to believe that 'absolutes' work. e.g. Corporations having absolutely no controls over them.
I suspect if most people thought about it there would recognise that they would have to be some government intervention, but they may differ as to how much.
Ravs.
-
seatbelt... helmet laws... gun control... all intrusive government action. smoking? why on earth does government tell privat bussines if they can smoke in their own buildings?
curly... you say you want to throw out all the government we have and form a whole new party.... one that will make us safe from the foreign threat... one guy did all that in the 1930's in germany... first thing he did when he got in power was to make the population safer with bans on private citizens owning firearms... in fact... he spread gun control through most of the world. drastic times require drastic solutions huh?
If you allow government to run health care then if won't matter if you pay for it or not... the best health care will no longer be available to anyone.
Many... no... most government agencies and programs in this country are worthless and could be simply shut down. All of the ones hoolign mentioned are on the list.
lazs
-
If someone wants to smoke and ultimately kill himself, I am all for it. I wish it would kill them while they are in their teens since it would have a positive effect on the gene pool.
However, the effects of second hand smoke are well documented now and no one has the right to hazard the health of others.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, if somebody wants to open a Bar in LA, it should be up to them whether or not it is a non-smoking establishment. If somebody wants to accept the risk of entering a smoking establishment, that is their right.
Nah, not so. It's certainly true the government has become more unwieldy since Eisenhower's days, but the general trend is positive. Too bad the government isn't like Microsoft, eh? They made a fortune from producing crap.
If you don't like Microsoft or Apple, you don't have to buy their products. Try not paying for the DEA and see what happens.
You can't? Man, I can! Industry is unable to police itself and prevent the sale of DDT; Industry is unable to guide itself away from monopolistic practices. Industry (in Europe) was unable to police itself when it comes to safe drug policies (remember thalidomide?) Good grief, Hooligan, the thought of corporate thugs on the loose is worse than Saddam on the loose.
One of the government's proper jobs is deal with those who harm others or their property. Fraudulent business practices are also a no-no, so I certainly think that thalidomide falls under that.
Ya think? Are you familiar with the history of WW2? You familiar with Alfred Loomis?
Yes, I am rather sure that US war production in which much of the production details were left to private industry was much more efficient that the state run industries in Germany and the USSR for example. And Alfred Loomis was a product of private enterprise who got involved because of the war, not a career Government bureaucrat. Even though the Atomic bomb was produced in time, it is rather a stretch to say that it was produced efficiently or quickly compared to what may have happened in a market based competitive environment. I haven’t noticed 20 nuke companies trying to undersell each other, and until we do we won’t know how efficiently and cheaply they can be produced.
I am pretty sure that I DON'T want the guys who run the DMV and postoffice to have anything more to do with my healthcare. And it boggles my mind that anybody would.
Simple solution there, feller. Pay for your own health care and you will have no worries.
I’m sure the Canadians get a laugh out of that. Under the fed’s most recent attempt to give us national healthcare, what you suggest would be illegal. Try to license your car independently of the state. I doubt they will approve of your homemade license plates, although they may be impressed enough to offer you a career in that field. Similarly try telling fedex or UPS to feel free to put their packages in your mailbox, i.e. the one you bought with your own money which resides on your property and see what they say?
I've never claimed to be wise enough to think that I could devise an effective and efficient government. If you really believe everything in the above paragraph, Hooli, I would encourage you to emigrate. Palestine comes to mind. You won't be troubled with government intervention at all.
As you well know, I don’t want anarchy. And as far as I can tell our founding fathers did a better job than anyone else in devising an effective and efficient government. I’d be perfectly happy to see the government cut back to what they envisioned.
Hooligan
-
I think as a socalled liberal norwegian, USA and Norway are two totally different nations and there is nothing wrong with that.
The difference is huge but we all are happily living in each of our way of free living (free speach, freedom to move, and freedom to choose whatevever we want within the law)
In Norway we have a huge land vs the inhabitants (4,5 million only) and that is supposed to cover a land that is at the size of UK.
But its harder to buildt.
Just take the roads they have to go trough huge mountains,fjords, ice and terrible weather.
cant be done without paying taxes.
population is also spread out, wich means hospitals have to be too.
Cant be done by inusranse companies, must be paid my taxes (otherways none woulda been able to pay for it)
Alcohol taxes is high (cant see a problem with that it isnt food)
car taxes is high( we need that for our roads and we afford it)
We was the one of the poorest countries in europe in the 1930`s and from that to 1960 (before the oil) we went out pretty good.
(taxes again)
Some still call us commis but we never been there, did we ?
I think this is a kinda socialism that actually works, but maybe just in small countries ?
USA prolly need to be a land of self made men, but Dont discriminate other countries for beeing able to do it otherwise.
I always looked at USA as a good place to be, for those who live their lives there but dont come talking bull about other places that actually made it ok too please.
I think not I hope.
I pay my 34% income tax and dont worry to much about it and still having a good life. (when i worked)
( student now and have a 0% tax and a low intrest loan to make it :D)
-
Hey Lasz....this should be interesting:
Click on
this website (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=1)
to take the test. Tell me your result.
I was in halfway down down and three quarters to the left (in the neighbourhood of Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.)
p.s. I am against anti-smoking legislation too. I reckon the reason why most places don't allow you to smoke is because of the number of 'passive smoking' legal claims against the owners of the premises - but the government didn't have to ban it.
Ravs
-
p.s. I am against anti-smoking legislation too. I reckon the reason why most places don't allow you to smoke is because of the number of 'passive smoking' legal claims against the owners of the premises - but the government didn't have to ban it.
Not true. Referendum vote from an activist population does this. Since most people don't get involved in the political process, a comparatively small but active group can dictate the behaviors of the majority. You could argue this gives the people no more than they deserve (because of their chosen inactivity), except the shop owners only get one vote apiece. This means relatively few people get to tell private business owners how they can run their businesses.
Bottom line is conservatives didn't come up with this stuff. A few people that decided the populace isn't smart or responsible enough to decide for themselves whether or not to frequent an establishment that allows smoking did this. These people were liberals.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Bottom line is conservatives didn't come up with this stuff. A few people that decided the populace isn't smart or responsible enough to decide for themselves whether or not to frequent an establishment that allows smoking did this. These people were liberals.
Referendums aside....
Just so I'm clear on who's a liberal and who's not...
when a state with a republican majority in the legislature and a republican goveroner passes an anti-smoking law in public places... that's the liberals at work?
-
It can be, if it happens with a referendum.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
seatbelt... helmet laws... gun control... all intrusive government action. smoking? why on earth does government tell privat bussines if they can smoke in their own buildings?
Because private citizens are sometimes forced (by circumstances) to enter the building.
curly... you say you want to throw out all the government we have and form a whole new party.... one that will make us safe from the foreign threat... one guy did all that in the
Lazs, do you read? Or is that whimsical smile just gas? I said NOTHING about wanting to throw anyone out. Indeed, I said I wasn't smart enough to make decisions like that.
If you allow government to run health care then if won't matter if you pay for it or not... the best health care will no longer be available to anyone.
Lazs, you know nothing about health care or its quality. You know nothing about the issues. Get back on your cycle and smoke your dope; move along. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by Kieran
It can be, if it happens with a referendum.
Not talking about the people voting in a referendum....
I'm talking about a REPUBLICAN Legislatures and a REPUBLICAN goveroner making a law banning smoking in public places... Do you think that never happened?
Or how about a REPUBLICAN congress banning smoking on all domestic flights....
I guess they are all a bunch of tie-dye liberals.
Or may be, they see the harm that smoking does?
and the AMA must be liberal too... and the REPUBLICAN appointed surgeon generals during the Reagan and Bush admins.. they were pot smoking, free sex liberals - right?
After all it's ok to have a 3 year old breathing in the noxous plumes of cigarrette smoke billowing up from the group of CONSERVATIVES sitting at the next table...at least at that table... we all know they are American loving patriots.
-
Referendum vote on smoking in public places ! Excellent idea.
Except in my experience reformed smokers tend to be utter zealots, so I can see how they won the vote....they just waited until the smoking lobby popped out for a quick studmuffin and then held the vote when they were gone.
Ravs
-
Nexus, just because someone calls themselves a republican doesn't mean they are a conservative. Same thing applies to democrats/liberals.
Schwarzenegger calls himself a republican, but he talks like a liberal.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
We don't have too much government. Perhaps what we have is misguided or perhaps money is ill spent, but folks, we have serious problems.
Today isn't like the 40s-50s-early 60s. We have situations where a small number of folks can create havoc.
1. One individual can disrupt network activities world wide.
2. A small group of individuals can easily terrorize a large country with lax border controls. The things that one can do ...
a) dynamite dams above cities,
b) botulism in the water supply,
c) infect one of Allah's chosen with pneumonic plague (or a virulent form of smallpox or ebola or whatever) and turn him loose in LA/NYC/DC/.
d) borrow some plutonium from Iran and set off a small nuke in London/NYC/Paris/Berlin/where ever
e) park a truck load of fertilizer in front of somone's house
and etc.
3. Corrupt police departments in all cities, all states and all countries as near as I can tell.
4. Corrupt political systems where political actions are controlled by special interest groups.
5. Inadequate controls on companies who have become so rich by the sale of their products/services, they are completely lacking in morality. They have lost sight of their original vision and will literally do anything to maintain the status quo.
6. And so on. Hell, the list is endless
The problem isn't that we have too much government. It's that our government is struggling to be effective.
I honestly believe the American political process will resolve all of the above. The cost will probably include throwing out all current political parties and find some new and acceptable solutions.
I suspect the changes will be so radical that many will label it revolutionary.
You rugged individualists are so full of it, well it boggles my mind. Here we have guys who have struggled through life, conquering all of the nice little problems that occur.
What have I seen all of us worry about? Divorce, alcoholism, drug addiction(other than alcohol), deaths?
And now that you've conquered your demons, you want to pretend that you did it by strength of character. Bull! If you had any character, the problem wouldn't have happened in the first place!
You acquired character only after you hit rock bottom and someone gave you a helping hand.
curly
I call that a very good post TY mate :)
yeah if you use a helmet you can save society a whole lot of money.
If you dont smoke you for sure save society a bugger much of money.
If you stay of of addiction like alcohol/drugs you would also save youre fellow inhabitants a ****load of money.
but if you get into a problem as above /damaged/addicted/sick( etc... you need sombody to help you,.. And i doubt youre neighbour that you trust so much will .... ? :) Maybe not the right word "want to" but do they really have time to do it ?
-
Airguard:
So you are saying: First we are going to tax you and pay for all your health care. But we are going to outlaw smoking and riding without a motorcycle helmet because you may impose costs that are too high. Maybe this sounds good to you... Until you live in British Columbia and need heart surgery at age 55. Sorry, they're not gonna waste the rationed medical care on you when they have others that need it more.
How about you save society a crapload of money by letting smokers and motorcyclists worry about their own healthcare costs?
Hooligan
-
sorry curly... won't wash.. you claim that these are extraordinary times and that we need big intrusive government to protect us... i am merely pointing out that the reasons you give have been given before... as for healthcare... who made you the expert? I read the pro and con views when we had the hillary debacle and i sure didn't see any clear cut experts then.... maybe I missed you treatsie on the subject?
Oh... I don't ride motorcycles or smoke dope.
your point about people being forced to go into private buildings and being expossed to second hand smoke was as lame as any I've seen so far on this BB too... Why would anyone be "forced" to go into a bar or resteraunt? to use the phone? the bathroom? I think their tender lungs could stand that short of an exposure to the evil weed don't u?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Airguard:
So you are saying: First we are going to tax you and pay for all your health care. But we are going to outlaw smoking and riding without a motorcycle helmet because you may impose costs that are too high. Maybe this sounds good to you... Until you live in British Columbia and need heart surgery at age 55. Sorry, they're not gonna waste the rationed medical care on you when they have others that need it more.
How about you save society a crapload of money by letting smokers and motorcyclists worry about their own healthcare costs?
Hooligan
(DID YOU EVER BOTHER TO READ MY POST ? )
It was about the diffrences between countries nothing more !!
I am 39 and a smoker ( sadly)
They wont turn me down if i get sick, if that is what you say.
Im just as good as anone and need the care as a none smoker (if I get sick).
I think youre talking about people that dont care about society, but they also get the same healthcare in Norway.
If their stupid enough to drive without a helmet and crash their head, they get help. ( and no need for a little note saying you paid youre incuranse)
I dont care how things in USA is going on my point was that countries is diffrent, and i guess you lost that point ?
Then again smokers like me is dying spieses, so is people driving wihout helmets/etc..
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think their tender lungs could stand that short of an exposure to the evil weed don't u?
lazs
The arguements that I've heard against smoking in public places is more so for the workers that are there all the time - not just the occational patron... like waitress and airline flight attendants....
If they are non-smokers... what choice do they have to work in a healthy environment?
Or do people not have the right to be safe where they work?
There's been a lot of bi-partisan debate on this issue and agreement that non-smoking laws are for the benefit of the common good. Not sure what you neo-cons are trying to argue here.... many of these laws have been passed by REPUBLICAN legislatures....and by public referendum...
If the people want smoke free public environments... they got them. That to me is democracy... the smokers are free to smoke all they want in their cars, and in their homes, away from public locations.
Next thing you neo-cons will whining about is the ban of C4 explosives on international flights!
-
This from the 'shorter' political quiz site.
Guess I think of myself as a 'Left-Liberal'.
Libertarian
Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity.
Left-Liberal
Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.
Conservative
Right-conservatives prefer self-government on economic issues, but want official standards in personal matters. They want the government to defend the community from threats to its moral fiber.
Authoritarian
Authoritarians want government to advance society and individuals through expert central planning. They often doubt whether self-government is practical. Left-authoritarians are also called socialists, while fascists are right-authoritarians.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sorry curly... won't wash.. you claim that these are extraordinary times and that we need big intrusive government to protect us... i am merely pointing out that the reasons you give have been given before... as for healthcare... who made you the expert?
Yes, these are extraordinary times. I don't see where I said we need "big intrusive government" to protect us. Maybe we don't agree about big?
We do need governments with the authority to try new things. Maybe medical care in Canada won't work. I imagine they'll figure it out. Maybe the redistribution of wealth in Sweden won't work. I imagine they'll figure it out. Maybe decriminalization of drugs in Holland won't work. I imagine they'll figure it out.
Prohibition of alcohol sure didn't work. How did we change it? Counted noses.
Evidently, the majority of the citizens think we need to keep smoking out of public places, eh? If not, we'll count noses and change it.
your point about people being forced to go into private buildings and being expossed to second hand smoke was as lame as any I've seen so far on this BB too...
Lazs, you've limped so long, you wouldn't recognize lame if it bit you. :)
Suppose I'm John Q. Citizen and I walk into a public bar. I sit down at the bar, take out my sock puppet and order a beer. Now, the jerk next to me starts smoking. Godalmighty, my sock puppet may be damaged by second hand smoke.
Or, perhaps I'm Bill Gates and I go into a public place and I insist the minions with me attend. Do the minions say "but Mr. Gates, there are health threatening activities in the public place!" Nah, not if the minions want to keep their jobs. But, I digress and have repeated myself.
Why would anyone be "forced" to go into a bar or resteraunt? to use the phone? the bathroom? I think their tender lungs could stand that short of an exposure to the evil weed don't u?
As to why, read the above. People are constantly forced by circumstances to do things they *REALLY* don't want to do just because their boss/spouse/friend wants to do it.
If you don't like the smoking ban or helmet laws, why get out there and find a candidate for office (or better, run yourself) and support him.
The majority of the public likes helmet laws and smoking ban.
curly
-
nexus... I have no problem with anti smoking laws in public owned buildings.
in private owned... it would be up to the owner. if people didn't come to his establishment because it allowed smoking then he would self govern... as for his help... if they smoked they could work for him... if not... they could work for the guy next door. Chances are... there would be lots more smoke free work than smoke filled work.
oh... rav.. i am more libertarian than anything else.
lazs
-
You said.
-----
oh... rav.. i am more libertarian than anything else.
-----
I am begining to think so too! You are also the most consistent.
The only thing is that it leads to weird results...
Ravs
-
what weird results would those be? Most results are predictable if you use logic.. liberals want to force the result based on some vague "feeling" not logic or fact.
While I have seen many liberal ideas result in very "weird" and harmful results.... I have never seen ones based on logic and fact do so.
lazs
-
AKCurly wrote:
you've limped so long, you wouldn't recognize lame if it bit you.
lol Curly. Some great post you have made but this one made me burst out laughing right in the middle of work.. Damn!! you being so funny!! j/k O ya, I back all that serious stuff your saying as well. Good points you made even when folks dont hear, but only read your post.
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
I agree wholeheartedly. However, if somebody wants to open a Bar in LA, it should be up to them whether or not it is a non-smoking establishment. If somebody wants to accept the risk of entering a smoking establishment, that is their right.
Come on Hooligan, surely you can imagine circumstances where an individual would have to enter the bar, even though they don't want to.
Suppose a feller's job is sharpening pencils for Bill Gates and BG wants a beer. BG enters said bar and insists his pencil sharpener come along. Does the pencil sharpener say "No, I will not do it!" ?
If you don't like Microsoft or Apple, you don't have to buy their products. Try not paying for the DEA and see what happens.
Sure. ;) I don't like second hand smoke and I'm not buying any of that either.
One of the government's proper jobs is deal with those who harm others or their property. Fraudulent business practices are also a no-no, so I certainly think that thalidomide falls under that.
So do monopolistic business practices.
Yes, I am rather sure that US war production in which much of the production details were left to private industry was much more efficient that the state run industries in Germany and the USSR for example. And Alfred Loomis was a product of private enterprise who got involved because of the war, not a career Government bureaucrat.
Exactly. In times of extreme need, the citizen makes the difference in our society. Not so in many other countries.
Even though the Atomic bomb was produced in time, it is rather a stretch to say that it was produced efficiently or quickly compared to what may have happened in a market based competitive environment.
Hooligan, with all due respect, that is so inaccurate, it's difficult to even pick a point to illuminate.
The Manhattan project was efficient and yet provided a reasonable amount of protection for the private citizen. Had Corporation Xyz been responsible for the Manhattan Project, they would have tested it in downtown Redmond.
Normally, market based competitive environments are excellent. They figure out the quickest way to produce an excellent product for minimum cost. However, if you grant a competitive advantage (say by overlooking monopoly laws), then the company switches from being to competitive to maximizing its profit. They start producing crap and because of marketing positioning granted the government (monopolies), real harm is done to the private citizen.
Look at the extraordinary POS that MS is currently selling. Does it work? Well, sort of. What's the cost? Saturated networks and inordinate amounts of downtime due to viruses.
Why doesn't MS clean its OS up? In a phrase, because they have no compelling reason to do so. They are in business to make money (good reason) and they maximize their profits by ignoring quality control. How can they do this? Because they have in effect been granted a monopoly.
I haven’t noticed 20 nuke companies trying to undersell each other, and until we do we won’t know how efficiently and cheaply they can be produced.
Then you aren't paying attention, feller. A Japanese firm has produced a "fool proof" nuke reactor suitable to provide power for an entire town. Negotiations are underway to use in Alaska.
I’m sure the Canadians get a laugh out of that. Under the fed’s most recent attempt to give us national healthcare, what you suggest would be illegal.
Sure, to us, the Canadian medical care system seems wrongheaded. I guess the majority of Canadians don't agree. If it doesn't work, they'll change it. Democracy ...
Try to license your car independently of the state. I doubt they will approve of your homemade license plates, although they may be impressed enough to offer you a career in that field.
I see. :) You want the advantages of a government (highways, postal system, & etc), but you don't want to pay the price.
As you well know, I don’t want anarchy. And as far as I can tell our founding fathers did a better job than anyone else in devising an effective and efficient government. I’d be perfectly happy to see the government cut back to what they envisioned.
That's really farsighted, hooli. Do you really think they were concerned about lunatics flying jets into large buildings? :) Wow! I didn't know that ole Ben Franklin had such powerful visions of the future.
Hooligan, you remind of some guys I know. They still resist using modern programming languages. They insist that everything should be written in assembler. Indeed, when I'm around them, I always agree with them and encourage them to just use machine language.
curly
-
curly... I don't think that helmet laws or seat belt laws or smoking in a private building should be allowed to be put up to a vote. Does that answer your question?
I would say that a person who refused to go into a building because it had a "this is a smoking building" sign on it would have a very good court case if his employer forced him to enter and instantly ruin his lungs wouldn't you?
I believe that the public has a right to vote on what is done in public buildings but not private... nor does the public have the right to tell someone to wear a helmet or to not climb mountains or skydive or hang glide or anything else that does not harm the public in any direct way.
yep... I've limped for a long time but.... that seems a triffle insensitive for you to bring up... I will assume that you did it because you know that I am shallow and insensitive and not that you have any particular predjudice against people who are less mobile than yourself tho.
you seem to be saying tho that we are in dangerous times.... which times weren't? and.... what is so dangerous that we should give up our rights to be protected from it? I don't know what it is that you want. certainly people not wearing helmets or seat belts doesn't pose a threat to your or your freedom.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curly... I don't think that helmet laws or seat belt laws or smoking in a private building should be allowed to be put up to a vote.
you seem to be saying tho that we are in dangerous times.... which times weren't? and.... what is so dangerous that we should give up our rights to be protected from it? I don't know what it is that you want. certainly people not wearing helmets or seat belts doesn't pose a threat to your or your freedom.
lazs
The public has the right to ban "strip" and "night" clubs in their neigborhoods.
Private business that are open to the public and serve the general public must obey certain laws... such as not refusing to serve minorities or women.
They also have to obey public health laws... especially if they serve food..... Chinese restaurants can't claim that cockroaches in the fried rice give it that "oriental" authencity.
Smoking is a health issue.... and since cigarrette smoke is air borne... a smoker can't smoke and not affect people next to them.... well.. perhaps they can if they choose not to exhail.
Business do not have the right to promote an environment which is unsafe to the public.
So what does the public do? Ban smoking in public accessable businesses... it's their right to do that, because they are protect the public health.
IIRC, most of these anti-smoking laws can't touch Private clubs which require private membership.... that's how some golf and country clubs manage to circumvent civil rights laws and prevent access by women and minorites... have to be recommended by a current member.
-
nexus... I don't believe the public has the right to ban strip clubs if the clubs are not breaking any zoning laws or human rights violations.
same for smoking. as for health issues.... I would say that a resteraunt is telling people it has clean healthy food as advertised.. if that is not the case then you could not know unless it were inspected.. smoking is nothing like that .. a sign outside the entrance proclaiming that the the building was or was not a smoking building should be sufficient.
I don't smoke... can't stand the smell even... don't allow people to smoke in my home or car.... I would probly not patronize a resteraunt that allowed smoking... chances are... most people wouldn't... ithe laws are a complex solution to a nonexistent problem.. just silly do gooderism that is all show and no substance and just one step further down the road to big brotherism.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curly... I don't think that helmet laws or seat belt laws or smoking in a private building should be allowed to be put up to a vote. Does that answer your question?
Hey, I agree with that. You said "private building."
I would say that a person who refused to go into a building because it had a "this is a smoking building" sign on it would have a very good court case if his employer forced him to enter and instantly ruin his lungs wouldn't you?
You bet!
I believe that the public has a right to vote on what is done in public buildings but not private... nor does the public have the right to tell someone to wear a helmet or to not climb mountains or skydive or hang glide or anything else that does not harm the public in any direct way.
So long as your activities don't infringe unduly on me, I completely agree. However, when you undertake activities which cause the authorities to rescue your sorry ***, I believe you are getting in my pocketbook.
When you give some moron the right to put his 6 year child on the back of a motorcycle sans helmet, you are guilty of child endangerment. Children have difficulty understanding danger.
yep... I've limped for a long time but.... that seems a triffle insensitive for you to bring up... I will assume that you did it because you know that I am shallow and insensitive and not that you have any particular predjudice against people who are less mobile than yourself tho.
Nope. :) I brought it up because of my AH training. I have learned to shoot all chutes. When I see Lazs posting on political matters, hell, it's a chute! :)
you seem to be saying tho that we are in dangerous times.... which times weren't? and.... what is so dangerous that we should give up our rights to be protected from it? I don't know what it is that you want. certainly people not wearing helmets or seat belts doesn't pose a threat to your or your freedom.
I want all children to have to the right to grow up. Therefore, I want helmets on them. I could care less about the adults.
Dangerous times ... give up rights. Whoa, big long complicated list there. During the civil war, habeas corpus (correct phrase?) was suspended. Citizens were tossed in jail and were charged with nothing. They were simply held in jail for several years.
I don't know of similar ww1 or 2 extreme actions by the government, but I'm sure they're there.
I guess my take on the subject goes like this: It's up to our government to decide when times are dangerous enough to suspend certain basic liberties (see Abe Lincoln.) And, if we don't agree with the government, well, we toss the rascals out and get a new set.
Better be careful when you toss them tho. :)
I want all cars to have seat belts. I don't care whether you wear yours or not. But, I want the belts there. I want all children safely restrained while they are passengers in an automobile. Failure to restrain a child passenger in a car should result in a charge of attempted manslaughter.
So yeah, I don't like the current seat belt laws either. So what? The legislation is new (as those things go) and it will either pass the test of time or go the way of prohibition.
curly
-
No word of a lie...
There was this restaurant in Sydney, Australia where you could eat your food off a naked woman.
It was closed down by....the health department on the grounds that it was unhygenic.
Ravs
-
Come on Hooligan, surely you can imagine circumstances where an individual would have to enter the bar, even though they don't want to.
Without involving coercion I can't. I can always tell Bill: "Hey, I'm not going in there." He can fire me if he wants and hire somebody who will go into the bar. If he pulls a gun on me and insists (i.e. coercion) then that is and should be illegal.
Sure. I don't like second hand smoke and I'm not buying any of that either.
If you want to go into hitech's office, that's the price you pay. It's his office and he smokes. As long as nobody uses force to get you in there, why should anybody besides hitech tell him if he can smoke in his office.
So do monopolistic business practices.
Like the post office you mean? The only monopolies are government supported ones.
The Manhattan project was efficient and yet provided a reasonable amount of protection for the private citizen. Had Corporation Xyz been responsible for the Manhattan Project, they would have tested it in downtown Redmond.
Neither you nor I believe this, but you still seem to miss the point that I have already said that warmaking is a legitmate function of government.
Look at the extraordinary POS that MS is currently selling. Does it work? Well, sort of. What's the cost? Saturated networks and inordinate amounts of downtime due to viruses.
Why doesn't MS clean its OS up? In a phrase, because they have no compelling reason to do so. They are in business to make money (good reason) and they maximize their profits by ignoring quality control. How can they do this? Because they have in effect been granted a monopoly
Well I don't think Windows is perfect, but a lot of people buy it so the votes would indicate that it is better than brand-X. I do not believe your premises: (its a POS, they don't try to improve it). If you are right then 5 years from now you won't have to worry about using Windows because somebody will take their business away just like they took Wordperfect's so-called-monoply. You can get Linux, Unix, DR-DOS or Apple. All you are really saying is that some unknow company would have done it better if MS wasn't there. I consider this rather a stretch. MS DOESN'T HAVE A MONOPLY. Your alternate choices may be unattractive but YOU STILL CHOOSE. Your local telephone company may have a monoply. You can't start string your own phone lines and selling phone service to your neighbors. The police would come to your door if you tried. That is a monoply. Nobody is going to send guys with guns to your house if you start selling a new O/S tomorrow. If it is good enough and cheap enough (and these would have to be very significant improvements), then you would have no trouble selling it.
I see. You want the advantages of a government (highways, postal system, & etc), but you don't want to pay the price.
Where did I say that? Given the choice: I will take the army, police and highways and pay for them. The post office should be privatized and the BATF and DOE should go in the dustbin. I can't think of a compelling reason we should have to license cars.
That's really farsighted, hooli. Do you really think they were concerned about lunatics flying jets into large buildings? Wow! I didn't know that ole Ben Franklin had such powerful visions of the future.
I think that clearly falls under "national defense", so I guess they did.
Hooligan
-
You go Curly.
:aok
-
curly... we agree i suppose.. I believe it allright for the government to protect children from morons... they can require baby car seats and helmets on mororcycles etc. no problem I am talking about adults. I also have no problem with seat belts being required equipment .... wearing them should be optional.
I also believe that more people were in danger from outside sources during the making of the constitution than now even. I believe the constitution provides for these things... when all those people were imprisoned during the civil war or... when all those japs were intured during WWII.... did those desperate "extraordinary" measures really make us any safer?
so far as rights go... I can't see just voting them away and then seeing how it works out hoping that we will simply get the chance to vote them back in when we see the error... I don't believe some things should be voted on.
For instance.. would it be ok if we all voted to send all the black people in this country to africa? we would reduce crime instantly and save lives. If it turned out to be a bad law we could just repeal it later... after all.... the experiment with prohibition didn't really cause much of a problem did it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Without involving coercion I can't. I can always tell Bill: "Hey, I'm not going in there." He can fire me if he wants and hire somebody who will go into the bar. If he pulls a gun on me and insists (i.e. coercion) then that is and should be illegal.
You really can't? It's quite easy to construct such a scenario. Suppose you work for Bill. Suppose your wife has been laid off. You need to earn money for your family. Therefore, you cannot tell Bill to FO. To be sure, you can look for other jobs, but at that moment, you cannot afford to quit your job.
If you want to go into hitech's office, that's the price you pay. It's his office and he smokes. As long as nobody uses force to get you in there, why should anybody besides hitech tell him if he can smoke in his office.
I dunno hooli. Does hitech have employees? Does hitech have the right to smoke exposing his employees to second hand smoke? Hitech's office isn't a private building, is it? He employs the public. Ergo ...
Like the post office you mean? The only monopolies are government supported ones.
Hooligan, it's ok for you post remarks like that, but both of us know you don't believe it.
Well I don't think Windows is perfect, but a lot of people buy it so the votes would indicate that it is better than brand-X. I do not believe your premises: (its a POS, they don't try to improve it).
Hooligan, think about it. Suppose Microsoft had 25% of the PC OS market. Do you think they would be straining to to bullet proof their products? Are they bullet proof now? Why aren't they straining? No competition. Why is there no competition? Predatory business practices and favorable court rulings. While MS is not a monopoly dejure, it is a monopoly in fact.
If you are right then 5 years from now you won't have to worry about using Windows because somebody will take their business away just like they took Wordperfect's so-called-monoply.
Sure, this stuff will eventually shake out and I'm content to wait if the courts will play fair.
MS DOESN'T HAVE A MONOPLY. Your alternate choices may be unattractive but YOU STILL CHOOSE. Your local telephone company may have a monoply. You can't start string your own phone lines and selling phone service to your neighbors. The police would come to your door if you tried. That is a monoply.
Yeah, I'm familiar with the phrase, in fact and in practice.
Where did I say that? Given the choice: I will take the army, police and highways and pay for them. The post office should be privatized and the BATF and DOE should go in the dustbin. I can't think of a compelling reason we should have to license cars.
Well, I agree about the post office, but not much else. Concerning car licenses, how about tracking of criminals? How about when a 6 year old is snatched by a pedophile? Want the neighborhood watch to say "well, his car was yellow and he looked mean?"
curly
-
If the people want smoke free public environments... they got them. That to me is democracy... the smokers are free to smoke all they want in their cars, and in their homes, away from public locations.
Wrong. People or workers choose to patronize or work at a place that allows smoking. Absolutely no need for government intrusion. Your statement still amounts to people aren't smart or responsible enough to make choices for themselves.
-
democracy should not be involved where rights are concerned. it really is that simple.
I am confused a little about monopolies. If they are so bad then how are they good when they are government controlled?
lazs
-
You really can't? It's quite easy to construct such a scenario. Suppose you work for Bill. Suppose your wife has been laid off. You need to earn money for your family. Therefore, you cannot tell Bill to FO. To be sure, you can look for other jobs, but at that moment, you cannot afford to quit your job.
I dunno hooli. Does hitech have employees? Does hitech have the right to smoke exposing his employees to second hand smoke? Hitech's office isn't a private building, is it? He employs the public. Ergo ...
It is still a choice. You can tell Bill to FO. Is the risk of second hand smoke worse than unemployment? It should be up to the individual to decide, just like you can decide to take a dangerous constuction job. You seem to be missing something as basic as the difference between coercion and employment: "If you don't mow my lawn I won't pay you" is different than "If you don't mow my lawn I will kill you". No matter how much you "need" the money for the lawn job, me not paying you is not assault with a deadly weapon. Once again, if you accept a job with HTC you should be prepared to be in an office with smokers. Otherwise don't take the job.
Hooligan, it's ok for you post remarks like that, but both of us know you don't believe it.
I believe it because it is true.
From dictionary.reference.com:
Monoply:
1) Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).
2) Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3) A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
Really, think about it. Can you legally buy a different O/S than Windows? You can so it is not a monoply. Can you name even one non-government sponsored monoply? I can't. You can disprove with an example but I don't think that is going to happen.
Hooligan, think about it. Suppose Microsoft had 25% of the PC OS market. Do you think they would be straining to to bullet proof their products? Are they bullet proof now? Why aren't they straining? No competition. Why is there no competition? Predatory business practices and favorable court rulings. While MS is not a monopoly dejure, it is a monopoly in fact.
First of all I think they are straining. Also nothing is bulletproof, so why do you expect Windows to be? If Windows is so so crappy why are you and I passing on buying brand X? You seem to forget that we don't have to buy a copy of Windows 2004 (or whatever the next version is). If they are going to get my money and your money for the next version of Windows, we have to willingly fork it over and that is why they will continue to add new features and improvements (rather than sell XP forever). Not to mention, that once they stop upgrading it, it is only a matter of time until somebody takes their market away. In any case, it is only a matter of time. IBM, Wordperfect, Ford and a ton of other companies were once in unassailable dominating market positions. The only certainty is that those positions don't last. If MS behaved like you seem to think they do, Windows would probably have gone the way of Lotus 123 by now.
Concerning car licenses, how about tracking of criminals?
I think only the most incompetent of criminals don't know how to steal and switch a license plate. I remain unconvinced that there is a need for them.
Hooligan
-
I think only the most incompetent of criminals don't know how to steal and switch a license plate. I remain unconvinced that there is a need for them.
so by your logic its pointless to have photographs on drivers liscences
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
It is still a choice. You can tell Bill to FO. Is the risk of second hand smoke worse than unemployment? It should be up to the individual to decide
Hooligan, you must have been born with a silver spoon up your butt. :) You obviously have no idea how desperate the situation can become for someone who has a low profile on the job market. Getting another job simply isn't an option for many folks.
I believe it because it is true.
From dictionary.reference.com:
Monoply:
1) Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).
2) Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3) A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
Really, think about it. Can you legally buy a different O/S than Windows? You can so it is not a monoply. Can you name even one non-government sponsored monoply? I can't. You can disprove with an example but I don't think that is going to happen.
Hooligan, you are having trouble with the difference between monopolies de jure and monopolies in principal. One is illegal (in principal) and the other isn't.
Microsoft is a monopoly in principal.
I think only the most incompetent of criminals don't know how to steal and switch a license plate. I remain unconvinced that there is a need for them.
It happens every day,feller. With license tags, you have no easy way to trace automobiles. To be sure, it's no deterrence to professional car thieves, but it is a useful tool against lunatics who nab children.
curly
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am confused a little about monopolies. If they are so bad then how are they good when they are government controlled?
lazs
Chute! Chute!
curly
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curly... we agree i suppose.. I believe it allright for the government to protect children from morons... they can require baby car seats and helmets on mororcycles etc. no problem I am talking about adults. I also have no problem with seat belts being required equipment .... wearing them should be optional.
Yeah, me too lazs, no argument here. The place to change things is at the ballot box.
I also believe that more people were in danger from outside sources during the making of the constitution than now even. I believe the constitution provides for these things... when all those people were imprisoned during the civil war or... when all those japs were intured during WWII.... did those desperate "extraordinary" measures really make us any safer?
Well, the civil war was unpopular in many places in the North. Many wealthy folks simply wanted to walk away from it -- cost too much money. And of course, the wealthy controlled the press (or a lot of it.) A. Lincoln shut down some newspapers too.
I haven't really investigated civil actions during ww2.
so far as rights go... I can't see just voting them away and then seeing how it works out hoping that we will simply get the chance to vote them back in when we see the error... I don't believe some things should be voted on.
Why? If I have to live under "your rules", surely I should have the opportunity to punch a ballot.
For instance.. would it be ok if we all voted to send all the black people in this country to africa? we would reduce crime instantly and save lives. If it turned out to be a bad law we could just repeal it later... after all.... the experiment with prohibition didn't really cause much of a problem did it?
Well Lazs, while you're busy sending the black folks to Africa, be sure to bundle up the unmarried white women with children! They constitute well over 75% of welfare moms. Lazs, I'm being sarcastic -- hope you are too.
curly
-
Lazs
what weird results would those be? Most results are predictable if you use logic.. liberals want to force the result based on some vague "feeling" not logic or fact.
While I have seen many liberal ideas result in very "weird" and harmful results.... I have never seen ones based on logic and fact do so.
lazs
I'll be happy to explain why I think the consistency of your view ends in weird results.
You take the view that all convicted criminals, under every circumstance should be released into society after serving their sentences without any restrictions on what they can or cannot do after they leave prison. You base this on the presumption that if someone has served their sentence the slate should be 'wiped clean' regardless of the crime. If there is a doubt about whether they will reoffend then they should continue to remain in prison.
You are comfortable that child abusers, after they have served their term in prison should be allowed to work with minors (albeit that you would like to see a death penalty for them, but this state of affairs does not universally exist)
You are confortable that people convicted of gun crime should be allowed to own a firearm on release from prison.
The list could go on, but these two results should serve as absurd conclusions in themselves of your proposition.
The problem, I think, is that you live in a 'black and white' world and unable to see shades of grey. Of course, I agree with you that if someone is convicted of a minor shoplifting offence they should be allowed back into shops on their release and their rights fully restored. However, I find that extending that to giving violent criminals free access to guns or child abusers free access to children totally wacky. I expect that most would agree.
Ravs.
-
curly... pathetic.. a government monopoly is ok but not a private one? Seems I have been damaged more during my lifetime by government monopolies than any private ones... when government reliqueshes their monopoly the cost is halved in every case... if I am in a chute you are dangling there with me. on the white women thing...fine... if your goal is to reduce welfare then lets all vote to send the single white women off somewhere but.... Would be easier to get rid of all the blacks tho because we outnumber them and vote more and nobody likes crime.... I mean... it would be ok so long as we voted right?
rav... interesting theory... you mean letting criminals go is a bad thing? My executing them or keeping them till they were old and infirm wouldn't work? Maybe we should stay with the liberal way that is working so well now... we keep em maybe 1/3 of their sentance... if we sentance them.... because we can't really... cause the prisons are full of repeat offenders. we take away most of their rights if we do let em out and make sure that they realize that they are 3rd class citizens that are despised by all and shunned so that they have a good excuse to re offend. In the first part of the last century people were incarcerated longer and they were less prone to reoffend. They had their rights restored upon leaving prison... they actually did hand them their guns back but, for the most part.... the youthful fight and anger was out of em..
I would submit that it is your prison reform and parole system that has resulted in weird results... not mine. If I were a criminal and given the choice of ten years in prison and then having all my rights restored or 5 years and no rights ever again and 5 years of parole.... I would take the ten years... unless... unless I was a career criminal just looking to get out as soon as possible to get back into crime. "rights" and "laws" are of little importance to a criminal.
lazs
-
rav... what I find absurd is your idea of gray... everything is gray to you. you overhink everything and make it more complex than it needs to be. How would letting a murderer out after say 40 years be any worse than letting 20 of em out with (LOL) "parole" after 5 years while they are still in their most violent years of life? How is making "rules" for child molesters gonna work? Are you saying that no child molesters re offend under your curren "gray" system? They would not under my black and white one.
Are you saying that not being able to LEGALLY buy a firearm is gonna deter all the violent criminals that you have released through your "gray" system...
we are all seeing the absurd results of your complex and confusing, nonsensical penal system... You yourself were bemoaning the recidivism of your own country... and why not? you created it.
I think it does boil down to liberal and conservative... you love humanity but hate people... the example holds... you want to do nice things for the criminal caste but hate the individuals... I look at every criminal as an individual. I punish him for his offense and then tell him.... "you did your time... if yu want to be a man amongst men then here is your chance... good luck."
lazs
-
Lasz,
You had not mentioned until now that your method of preventing recidivism to put people into prison for so long they'd be too old to commit crimes on their release. Sure, that would solve the problem and changes the complexion of your argument entirely.
You're going to need a hell of a lot more prisons though which will translate into a massive tax burden which people are unlikely to vote for (after all, who wants a government with a high taxation policy like a liberal government?). So that leaves you with - parole. Not ideal, I grant you, but relieving prison overcrowding is a large reason why we have parole. Given that we have to live with the fact (unless and until more prisons are built) better to have some control over people when they do get out than giving them a carte blanche to reoffend, don't you think?
It *is* a fact that there is always more than one way at looking at a problem. Many everyday decisions we make are 'judgement calls' of one description or another - hence the shades of grey.
What makes you think 'I love the criminal caste'? You were the one who was advocating that they be freed with all their rights intact.
You say I hate the individual. Do you think your average prisoner would prefer to be in prison for 20 years with a chance of parole after 10, or serve the full 20 years without a chance of parole (as you suggest all criminals with 20 year sentences should). Sounds like you're tarring everybody with the same brush in your scheme which is not very individualistic, is it?
lol...I liked what you said about me overthinking stuff and making it more complicated than it needed to be, as I was thinking that you were underthinking stuff and simplifying it too much! - One more difference between liberals and conservatives perhaps?
take care.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Wrong. People or workers choose to patronize or work at a place that allows smoking. Absolutely no need for government intrusion. Your statement still amounts to people aren't smart or responsible enough to make choices for themselves.
Kieran, I'm surprised you feel that way. By that logic then the Government has no rights whatsoever to enforce safety regulations (OSHA) in sawmills, mines, textile factories- any industry.
LOL You are more right wing than I thought.
:)
-
rav... my point was that yu love the criminal humanity by light or no, sentances, early release, parole... etc. but you hate the person by depriving him of his humanity... Arguably, he did it to himself but if he served his time he deserves a real chance not some liberal caste system..
How would keeping criminals in for their full sentance cost so much? no more parole officers.... no expensive trial for the same guy every 2 or 3 years... and, most of all..... lots less loss of property and life and fewer ruined lives....
Say I am wrong... say that after a 20 year sentance an armed robber takes his legal gun and does another robbery. maybe he kills or injures someone.... maybe not.
How is that different than you letting him out in 5 years and him doing the same thing with an illegal weapon? With my system he gets another 20 maybe 30 or 50 year sentance... with yours he gets another 30 years which means he is out in 6 or 7 doing it again... maybe he gets caught the next time and maybe he gets caught after the next dozen or so crimes.
How is having these criminals out on the street cheaper than paying for a cell for em?
We will allways have a certain amount of violent criminals... that percent stays pretty constant throughout time... they need to be incarcerated in a meaningful way and they also need a chance to change.
Airhead... I believe that law suits have more to do with safe work practices and insurance issues than osha. Companies should be made to provide all necessary safety equipment as part of their bussiness licence... they can make it mandatory or not to use it at their whim but... workers who don't use safety equipment would not be covered under the companies insurance.
lazs
lazs
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Kieran, I'm surprised you feel that way. By that logic then the Government has no rights whatsoever to enforce safety regulations (OSHA) in sawmills, mines, textile factories- any industry.
LOL You are more right wing than I thought.
:)
Believe it. The government shouldn't regulate those things, they should be negotiated between the union and the company. THAT'S what unions are for.
-
"Believe it. The government shouldn't regulate those things, they should be negotiated between the union and the company. THAT'S what unions are for."
LOL How bout minimum wages? The 40 hour work week? Child labor laws? Are all of these issues that should be negotiated by a Union?
Seriously, are you trolling me? Friends don't troll friends bud.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
With my system he gets another 20 maybe 30 or 50 year sentance... with yours he gets another 30 years which means he is out in 6 or 7 doing it again... maybe he gets caught the next time and maybe he gets caught after the next dozen or so crimes.
lazs
You got your furball map lazs but I doubt you'll get your "system". FWIW, I agree that criminals, especially the violent ones, should do all or at least most of their sentence.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
LOL How bout minimum wages? The 40 hour work week? Child labor laws? Are all of these issues that should be negotiated by a Union?
Seriously, are you trolling me? Friends don't troll friends bud.
What are unions for, then?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
What are unions for, then?
I thought Conservatives hated the labor movement?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I thought Conservatives hated the labor movement?
This conservative hates what they've become. In concept they are just fine.
-
Sounds like Kieren wants constitutionally mandated labor unions.
-
This entire argument is getting turned upside down.
Lasz read the posts....I wasn't the one who said that criminals deserved lighter sentences...I was the one who said we voted for a system which was not prepared to pay for them to serve full terms.
BUT you appear to be saying that if they serve their full sentences (which I read is at least 40 years no matter what) then they ought to enjoy the same liberties as they had before so they can go out and reoffend...be they child molestors or gun crime people.
You appear to believe in this magical cure that if someone serves a full sentence they suddenly become law abiding. That is a bit silly, isn't it? I mean....Lasz....really!
The shades of grey (which you don't hold any stock by) which might make decide whether someone is held or released depends on the crime, their state of mind, the circumstances....I do understand that to you these are details which don't matter.
But, hey....as I see it, at least 3 billion people are following my version of the criminal justice system....how many are following yours?
Of course you're more intelligent than all of them :)
Ravs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sounds like Kieren wants constitutionally mandated labor unions.
Actually Kieran is parroting the Conservative POV when it comes to having a safe workplace and a livable wage. Liberals feel workers deserve a minimum wage and a safe working enviroment, Conservatives don't.
On this issue I must be a liberal then. (shrug)
-
Oh, c'mon.
At least TRY to tell me what you think unions are for. If the government is going to legislate everything the unions are supposed to be about, exactly what ARE the unions for?
Parroting? Give me a break. How 'bout you give a straight answer?
-
rav... I did not say that the minimum sentance should be forty years.. I said that a persons rights should be restored if he is released from prison. If you believe that the person should be released with full rights after serving 1 year then that would be fine.
For instance... a woman shoots a sleeping husband who has been beating her for years... she gets a 5 year sentance... serves evry minute of it and has all her human rights restored upon release inclding being able to buy a gun if she desires.
A man murders a store clerk in a robbery... he gets 20 years and serves every minute of it and then has all his rights restored.
A man molests several children... he is executed... in his new life... he gets to try again.
A man keeps and tortures a bunch of women... he is executed or given life in prison and serves every minute.
The "gray" area should be in the sentanceing not in the fact that the prisons are too crowded this year or this parole board is more or less livberal than that one or some well meaning shrink falls in love with some psychopath.
When a jury/judge convicts and sentances... they should know that the well thought out sentance will be upheld... They should also know that they deciding the severity of the sentance based on letting that person out with full human rights.
In your/our/the current system... the child molester and murderer is released over and over and over.... All the laws in the world that try to keep him away from children fail... he finds and molests another victim.. The gangbanger get's another gun and does in more of his scum bag buddies while making life rough on the rest of us. Would he be so likely to join the gang and shoot other gangbangers if he were 45 when he was released with full rights or 30 with no rights?
You are correct tho... many countries use your system... one step above branding their forehead... I bet I live long enough to see things swing more toward the way I would like. I bet they don't get much worse.
englands rising crime rate is proof that the "free range" style of raising criminals is not working.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
In your/our/the current system... the child molester and murderer is released over and over and over.... All the laws in the world that try to keep him away from children fail... he finds and molests another victim.. The gangbanger get's another gun and does in more of his scum bag buddies while making life rough on the rest of us. Would he be so likely to join the gang and shoot other gangbangers if he were 45 when he was released with full rights or 30 with no rights?
Several things... prisons are over populated with non-violent drug users... more than 50% of prison inmates are drug users... because of Reagan and Bush Sr's "Zero Tolerance" campaigne with manditory minimum sentences.
Violent criminals because there are no minimum sentences for them.
Give a choice between two evils, I'd rather have a murderer serving every day of a 40 year sentence in prison, and have a habitual pot smoker free to get high in front of his stereo.
Only have the Republican's to blame for the prison system.
1 out of every 5 black males in the DC/Baltimore area is under the Maryland correctional system... on probation or in prison...
A white Republican snorting cocain will get probation , a fine, rehabilitation, and community service, on their first offense... a black man in the inner city will be sent to prison for smoking crack on their first offense.
Republicans = Racists... just like their founding father Abe Lincoln
-
nexus... I would agree that the prisons are too full of non violent offenders.. That has nothing to do with it. I believe that if pot smokers were sentanced to 20 years in prison and the jury knew that they would have to serve all20....
we would get reform or the juries would simply refuse to convict. There is plenty of examples of juries refusing to convict guilty people because of bad laws or circumstance.
As for the poor downtrodden minorities....
Would you say that it is an American problem that we convict and imprison minorities at such a high rate? We have six times as many blacks in prison per 100,000 as we do whites... all other minorities we have twice as many imprisoned as whites per 100,000....
perhaps we should be as enlightened as say....... england where the rate for blacks is only 6 times that of whites per 100,000 imprisoned and the rate for other minorities is only twice the rate per 100,000 as whites.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Oh, c'mon.
At least TRY to tell me what you think unions are for. If the government is going to legislate everything the unions are supposed to be about, exactly what ARE the unions for?
Parroting? Give me a break. How 'bout you give a straight answer?
Unions organize workers into barganing units to negotiate contracts with employeers. Although wges are a concern, contracts involve other issues which can be just as important- number of jobs guaranteed, health care, pensions, etc.
Unfortunately most American workers aren't Unionized, so the Government has mandated industry-by-industry health and safety standards and a minimum wage.
Now since the question before us is the difference between liberal and conservative, is it safe to say that liberals believe the Gov't. should police industry to enforce safety standards and conservatives don't? Or are you going to keep dancing? ;)
-
Now since the question before us is the difference between liberal and conservative, is it safe to say that liberals believe the Gov't. should police industry to enforce safety standards and conservatives don't? Or are you going to keep dancing?
THE difference, or A difference? Certainly liberals tend to think we cannot take care of ourselves, and certainly they believe it is the government's job to do so. No argument from me.
But... if you think I am saying I am against unions as a conservative, you are only partially right. I am against what unions have become, that is, protection for workers who have no intention of actually working. That hurts us all.
What I am saying is if unions actually did what they are supposed to do, we wouldn't need government intervention- or at least, we'd need far less.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
THE difference, or A difference? Certainly liberals tend to think we cannot take care of ourselves, and certainly they believe it is the government's job to do so. No argument from me.
It's not a question of whether you can take care of yourself, it's a question of safe work enviroments and a liveable wage. Conservatives generally have opposed every advancement in workers' rights for the past 100 years.It is one issue that clearly defines the POV of both sides- why toss out those same old tired Rush Limbaugh lines and dance around this one specific issue? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Certainly liberals tend to think we cannot take care of ourselves, and certainly they believe it is the government's job to do so.
Alright.. I'll take this bait....
A person is liberal if the government does something on that person's behalf to help them out... rather than say let the free market do it's thing...
and in this arguement "person" could also mean an organization or a business.... or a collection of businesses.
Case in point...
Bush raises tarrifs on imported steel by 30%.
Why? to pretect American Steel companies... to allow them to modernize and compete with foreign steel companies which are more effecient...
Republicans are champions of anti-regulation, free market, and capitalism... yet they are also some of the stanches protectionists and special interest proponents.
Why not let the free market bury these ineffecient American steel companies... lay off the workers... shutdown the factories and let the free market have its way?
Instead, Bush, a Republican, is having the government "protect" US Steel... because it can't compete in a fair and open market.
And the WTO is going to levy fines... as well as all the foreign nations will respond in kind with sanctions and tarrifs against American goods.
Ook we saved the US Steel industry (or have we)... and screwed the rest of America.
If it's not military war... it's a trade war... Bush is an idiot... every business he's ever been a CEO of has filed for bankruptcy.
Sheesh!
-
Unions and companies only get away with doing bad things through the collusion of the Government.
If a company prefers to use thugs to beat and intimidate their workers rather than negotiate with them, or workers burn factory equipment rather than negotiate this is only allowed because government is not performing its police functions as it should be.
There is nothing wrong with Unions as long as they do not receive some special legal considerations which allow them to bargain with a company with the additional force of government coercion backing them up (which admittedly it often is). As long as companies and unions are free to negotiate as they please and both sides can walk away if no acceptable deal is offered, the system works fine. But when the government steps in and says you have to go back to work right now or that you have to hire those union workers, then the government is violating somebody's rights and abuses by the favored side inevitably follow.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Airhead
It's not a question of whether you can take care of yourself, it's a question of safe work enviroments and a liveable wage. Conservatives generally have opposed every advancement in workers' rights for the past 100 years.It is one issue that clearly defines the POV of both sides- why toss out those same old tired Rush Limbaugh lines and dance around this one specific issue? :rolleyes:
Now who's baiting whom?
Rush Limbaugh? C'mon, try harder.
The very reason there are unions in the first place is what you are discussing. The fact they protect people they should not should be obvious as well.
I'm not the one with the blinders on, pal.
-
quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No word of a lie...
There was this restaurant in Sydney, Australia where you could eat your food off a naked woman.
It was closed down by....the health department on the grounds that it was unhygenic.
Ravs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well come on, Ravs, makes perfect sense. I mean, you couldn't trust in the woman's cleanliness .... unless you'd washed her yourself, of course. ;)
-
Hey! what a great way to convince restaurant goers to do the washing up before and afterwards!!
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Now who's baiting whom?
Rush Limbaugh? C'mon, try harder.
The very reason there are unions in the first place is what you are discussing. The fact they protect people they should not should be obvious as well.
I'm not the one with the blinders on, pal.
Sorry Kieran, it was this line here-
"Certainly liberals tend to think we cannot take care of ourselves, and certainly they believe it is the government's job to do so."-
that sounded like it was something Rush Limbaugh would say.
Whatever, the Liberal opinion is that OSHA, minimum wages and work places made less hazardous by banning cigarette smoke are a good thing, and something I wish my Government to regulate and control.
Your stated opinion is that the Government should keep out of worker safety and other labor issues which protect workers- which I presume to be the conservative viewpoint on this particular issue.
No problem- you are a stated conservative and I am a stated liberal. I was trying to illustrate the difference in the two points of view on this issue without the usual anti-liberal or anti-conservative rheteroic. I thought you could discuss this without resorting to that, too- guess I was wrong. (shrug) Like I said, whatever- pal.
:rolleyes:
-
You're not my pal? If you think I am angry or trying to be offensive, my apologies, but I am not.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You're not my pal? If you think I am angry or trying to be offensive, my apologies, but I am not.
Actually you are on my top 10 list of posters I most enjoy reading. Hey, if I were President I'd name you as my Secretary of Education.
I didn't sense anger or offensiveness, but I sensed a bit of disengenousness. If you wish to debate the need of Government in the workplace then I'm your Huckleberry. If you wish to make grandoise "profound" statements about the motives of Liberals instead of debating the issue then that's cool too, but every Board we post to does that already.
No biggie, bud, I thought an explanation of why we feel the way we do about issues might start a dialogue and we (read left and right) might understand each other better. For that to work we have to quit bleating like sheep the old "four legs good two legs bad" mantra and present reasonable arguments without a personal attack.
-
Once again, I intended no personal attack and apologize if it read that way.
-
I have a little time here (lunch), so let me explain a little better...
I think the stereotypes of conservatives and liberals are to a great extent true.
Conservatives are generally pro-business, fend-for-yourself type people. They are not big on race or sexual orientation laws. They tend to be religious, or more to the religious end. They tend to want to keep what they feel they have earned, and resent what they feel is a redistribution of wealth. They tend to fight against sweeping social laws that impact everyone irrespective of the need for such laws for the bulk of people.
Liberals tend to want the government to make decisions for us. They want sharper regulations on business. They want to ensure equality for everyone. Some honestly feel some people have too much money and it should be redistributed. Their view of government is government is here to protect us, and to help us when we are down-and-out. Liberals tend to be more secular, shunning religion and religious values. Liberals tend to continue to fight for race, gender, and sexual orientation equality. Liberals tend to believe that certain programs are entitlements, and tend to create more entitlements all the time- at the taxpayers' expense.
Unions were originated in response to business total disdain for the workforce. Unions discovered business couldn't be in business without workers, and a walkout turned out to be a pretty powerful tool. And work it did- and still does, to a point. However, with the trend of business relocating overseas because of the high cost of production in America, unions are greatly reduced in strength. This forces them to create alliances with some pretty unsavory groups to maintain a modicum of lobbying power. Taking the teachers' union (NEA) as an example, we've wound up allied with organizations that support or promote activities such as abortion. I am firmly against abortion, therefore I cannot support my union. Oh sure, there are other reasons I choose not to be a member, but let me tell you, this one alone would be enough for me to withhold my membership.
Government interference in all walks of life have made life harder, not easier, to live. California is going down the tubes quickly and visibly, and it is largely due to the government's actions in industry and social life. Beat business to death with restrictions, beat taxpayers to death with referendum legislation funded on the taxpayers' dime (and is nearly impossible to reverse once in place) and what do you get? People and business moving the heck out of California as fast as they can. Add to that inane liberal law such as the California drivers' license for illegals fiasco and yeah... what a screwed up mess it is. It would be hard to argue less government in California would be worse than what they have now, wouldn't it? The tax base is leaving... once it is gone, who's going to pick up the tab on the social programs?
When you think about it, California serves as a pretty good case study as to what happens when the government gets too involved.
-
Aw, c'mon Airhead, tell me you still love me... is it my fault I didn't know you were serious?