Where Do We Draw The Line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joebehar

Nope....Although free elections are part of the freedoms we enjoy, I believe voting is an obligation not a right. Its one of the very, very small prices we pay for democracy.Theseus, I'm sure you're a great guy, but you're off the mark on this one.

---

I never said I don't vote. I'm saying that you shouldn't feel "obligated" to vote if the only reason you are voting is to choose the lesser of two evils. I tend to hold my moral obligations much higher than my political ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joebehar

Nope....Although free elections are part of the freedoms we enjoy, I believe voting is an obligation not a right. Its one of the very, very small prices we pay for democracy.

Theseus, I'm sure you're a great guy, but you're off the mark on this one.

---

+1 I was actually quite surprised at the voter turnout for the 2008 presidential elections. But even at 58% That means that 30% of the voters determined who would lead the country for the next four years. Little wonder our elected officials run buck wild when nearly half of the voting aged public isn't engaged enough or just doesn't care to go vote. True, lots of elections boil down to the lesser of two evils but it seems to me that if you flat don't vote, that's one less vote that the crappiest candidate will have to get to be elected. What if 30% of the vote wouldn't win an election? What if it took a full 51%? Seems to me that while whoever this person was, I probably wouldn't agree with all of his platform but if 51% of the voting age public voted for him, I think odds are good that he/she would do a good job. If not, he/she would have a tough time getting re-elected. Call me a simpleton if you will but a lot of these crooks run our country and line their own pockets simply because we're too tired, or too busy to let them know we won't take it anymore. Then there's the other half of the equation, career politicians, lobbyists and labor unions. The first two should be outlawed and labor unions should not be allowed to make political contributions on behalf of their members (IMHO).

So you want to draw the line towards mandatory voting? Doesn't sound like a step toward more freedom to me. For most people voting is a waste of time.
Of course, you can do a market based solution - let voters be able to openly sell their vote to the highest bidder. You'll probably get the same results as now, but at lower overall cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't think you understand the issue at all, because what you are saying is irrelevant to the matter. Demand for energy varies throughout the day by factor of about 2. Plus not many people are using fossil or nuclear energy directly to meet all of their household needs.

The issue is that energy storage and delivery on the scale for transportation is cheaper through fossil fuel at current market rates than the alternatives. But the fossil fuel isn't a limitless resource - it's just a storage of a tiny fraction of the solar energy over millions of years.
You can grow crops and convert much much larger fraction of the solar energy into fuel (like ethanol), but it's still more expensive than converting something accumulated over millions of years.

We already have hybrid and electric cars though, so we're closing to the crossover point.

---

Hybrid and electric cars are the stupidest thing we have come up with in a long time. By the time you pay for all the expensive electronics you could have purchased several years worth of gas. The pollution and extra energy you expend to make them negates any energy savings. Electronics plants use huge amounts of water and generate some of the most toxic byproducts. After you have used them for just a few years the battery pack goes out and you are looking at a $5000 replacement battery.

All electric? 45% of our electricity is from coal. There is generation and transmission losses to deal with. So a coal power car makes sense? We don't have enough generation capacity to charge everyone's cars, especially with Obama's war on the coal industry shutting down existing plants and blocking the building of new ones.

Sure fossil fuel isn't limitless but we have 200 years worth of coal and MANY decades worth of oil right here is the US if Obama would just let us go get it. Obama lies when he takes about increased production here. Any increased production is only coming from private land. The oil companies are still being blocked on government land and in the gulf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Hybrid and electric cars are the stupidest thing we have come up with in a long time.

---

No, that was the computer, and may be the space program. Do you know how much these things used to cost when they start making them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

All electric? 45% of our electricity is from coal. There is generation and transmission losses to deal with.

---

I see you're very good with numbers. Did you ever learn in school to both add and subtract?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Sure fossil fuel isn't limitless but we have 200 years worth of coal and MANY decades worth of oil right here is the US if Obama would just let us go get it.

---

There's plenty of geothermal energy too - the Earth's core is liquid. And let's not forget the thermonuclear synthesis. The issue is not what is available, but what is practical and how much it costs. You want cheap energy? Stop all the government regulation nuclear production, including how the fuel is generated and what happens with it afterwards. A great place to start with is Iran.

But I can tell none of this matters the least bit to you, everything is Obama's and the Democrat's fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joebehar

Interesting...although you're mostly right, the question that comes up is how do we keep companies that are less than ethical from ripping people off?

Its precisely the lack of regulation that got your fine country into that mortgage debacle that started this downward spiral,

I'm all for free markets, but free does not mean you can cheat and steal. if a private company willfully cheats and lies, they need to be held accountable. If you or I misrepresented ourselves at a bank and managed to get a million dollar loan and then refused to pay it back I think the full weight of the law would be upon us. Not one single person or company has been charged, let alone convicted in the sub prime mortgage fiasco.

I believe government should protect its citizens...all of them, not just the ones that donate millions to re election campaigns.

---

Lawyers keep bad corporations in check by taking all their money. Do you have Mesothelioma? Did you take Actos and have bladder cancer? Did your breast implants leak? You've seen the ads. The lawyers circle like sharks on the scent of blood.

I spell out to you step by step on how too much regulation on banks and how the government caused the housing and financial bust and your answer is MORE regulation. This does not compute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobH

The hysterical response to "socialized medicine" south of the border leaves me puzzled. I live in a country that has a form of socialized medicine, one of many variations out there, and do not want to see privatized medicine gain anymore of a foothold here than it already has. I trust large corporate entities even less than than I do governments. There are certain key things that I do not think privatization would improve. To me privatization in health care with the over riding motive of profit is a "death squad" waiting to happen. That is just the view from other side of the fence.

I recall having a conversation with a Minnesotan about taxes we both paid and it turned out that we were both tax free about the same time of year. The difference was that he had to pay a huge amount monthly for family private medical coverage which I did not. My medical coverage was included in the taxes I had paid. I think I will keep what I have and know.

No system is perfect but I would rather have a system where everyone is entitled to the same level of medical coverage rich or poor. There are many ways to get there but a two tiered system is not one of them for me.

Bob

---

The hysterical response is triggered by National stories about Canadian medicine. Like the parents of a child that had a terminal illness. They wanted to continue to treat the kid and the government refused. They wouldn't even allow the parents to purchase treatment. The hospitals were ordered to let him die. They brought the kid here to the US for treatment. The kid finally died, but the frightening part was the governments decision to kill the kid instead of leaving it up to the parents.

That's exactly what I mean about a faceless bureaucrat deciding if you live or die. It wasn't the doctors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theseus

Why should I vote if I don't believe in or agree with any of the candidates? Having the right to vote is also having the right to not vote.

---

The fact of life is that there are are few perfect candidates. So you are left with choosing the better of the two no matter how pathetic he may be.

We are in that scenario right now. Romney was picked by the media and the republican establishment. He was almost my last choice but that how it usually goes. At least he is a hell of a lot better than Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grizzley1

Just one thing.. storage isnt the problem,BMW has a hydrogen car which works fine and at this moment they are building a hydrogen highway in Finland I believe.

There storage cell seems to work fine.

---

Where do they get the hydrogen? I haven't heard of a car able to store even 100 miles worth. Hydrogen is the lowest energy density fuel on the planet.

With no distribution infrastructure we are a LONG way from being able to use hydrogen.

Hydrogen does have the advantage of being so light that even if it catches fire the flames go UP instead of spreading out on the ground. That's why there were so many survivors of the Hindenburg.

Oh, I forgot to mention two more BIG disadvantages of electric cars. In a crash the batteries rupture and eat the car. This happened to a friend of mine. If they have to cut someone out of a car the battery cables are a real danger to the rescuers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

No, that was the computer, and may be the space program. Do you know how much these things used to cost when they start making them?


I see you're very good with numbers. Did you ever learn in school to both add and subtract?


There's plenty of geothermal energy too - the Earth's core is liquid. And let's not forget the thermonuclear synthesis. The issue is not what is available, but what is practical and how much it costs. You want cheap energy? Stop all the government regulation nuclear production, including how the fuel is generated and what happens with it afterwards. A great place to start with is Iran.

But I can tell none of this matters the least bit to you, everything is Obama's and the Democrat's fault.

---

If you think the space program and computers an computers are bad you are off your nut.

Nasa did more to improve our standard of living than any other government program.

Have you ever had a friend saved by a Mobile ICU? That technology came directly from Nasa. Inertial navigation for aircraft and submarines. GPS. The list is endless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joebehar

I believe voting is an obligation not a right.

---

I believe the obligation ought to be educating yourself about the candidates before voting.

Just before the last election I was watching TV with my sister, there was a guy that looked like Obama and I said, "Wow - that guy looks a lot like Barack Obama."
She said "Who is that?"

How does a vote from someone like that help anyone?

(note: my sister doesn't vote - and I think that's a good thing.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

So you want to draw the line towards mandatory voting? Doesn't sound like a step toward more freedom to me. For most people voting is a waste of time.
Of course, you can do a market based solution - let voters be able to openly sell their vote to the highest bidder. You'll probably get the same results as now, but at lower overall cost.

---

No wasn't suggesting mandatory voting but it would be much better if people saw it as a civic duty than simply throwing up their hands and saying screw it (as tempting as that may be.) I guess I haven't answered the question yet. Where do I draw the line? Not sure, but I'm pretty sure when I put to to words, I'll get beat to death over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I love this type of discussion started by people who are concerned about the nanny state.
It is a reality that if the government did no mandate certain things, private enterprise / capitalism would not 'compete fairly to the best interest of the consumer'. They would collude, and lie, cheat and steal to get as much money out of your pocket as possible.

---

And those in government never collude, and lie, cheat and steal to get as much money out of your pocket as possible? The difference is that you have a choice not to participate with private industry. If you allow yourself to be fooled into participation by their tactics, especially when you should know better, then shame on you. If you refuse to participate with mandates of government, regardless if those mandates are legitimate or not, then the government can seize you or your property. Which would you prefer?

And in response to the OP:

It seems that we often forget that the line already exists in the form of our constitution which defines the rule of law that our government must follow. If we fail, or neglect, to read, understand and enforce the rules of the game, then it's anyone's game. And then who's to decide if the game was fairly played or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

And those in government never collude, and lie, cheat and steal to get as much money out of your pocket as possible? The difference is that you have a choice not to participate with private industry. If you allow yourself to be fooled into participation by their tactics, especially when you should know better, then shame on you. If you refuse to participate with mandates of government, regardless if those mandates are legitimate or not, then the government can seize you or your property. Which would you prefer?

---

+100 if you're counting on the government to be the arbitor of fair equitable and honest...Wow! let me know how that works out for ya. By definition, life is not fair and nothing is equal. If one of the "dastardly Capitalists" has the tumerity to make more money than I do, good for him. Don't know about you but I never got a paycheck from anyone who makes less money than me. I have less than zero problem with laws and legislation keeping opportunities equal. Results however should be left to the individual. Otherwise where's the incentive to work hard or do anything exceptional? In any such "egalitarian" economy, citizens regardless of their unique talents, intelligence and work ethic, become little more than farm animals, queuing up at the government trough at the appointed time. The only thing being equally distributed is misery. Unless of course you're part of the government elite, in which case, you have the best of everything while the common folks at best have whatever is left. It really is like a sophisticated intellectual exercise in slopping the hogs and guess what, most of us are hogs. Thanks but no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The hysterical response is triggered by National stories about Canadian medicine. Like the parents of a child that had a terminal illness. They wanted to continue to treat the kid and the government refused. They wouldn't even allow the parents to purchase treatment. The hospitals were ordered to let him die. They brought the kid here to the US for treatment. The kid finally died, but the frightening part was the governments decision to kill the kid instead of leaving it up to the parents.

That's exactly what I mean about a faceless bureaucrat deciding if you live or die. It wasn't the doctors.

---

I would be interested in a link or two to that story before I care to comment. I can say that a friend of mine went to our local hospital and underwent tests. They found he had a heart problem and a few days later they flew him an hour and half away to under go open heart surgery. All went well and he was flown home. Virtually no out of pocket expenses. He has absolutely no complaints. You got your stories and I have mine.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The hysterical response is triggered by National stories about Canadian medicine. Like the parents of a child that had a terminal illness. They wanted to continue to treat the kid and the government refused. They wouldn't even allow the parents to purchase treatment. The hospitals were ordered to let him die. They brought the kid here to the US for treatment. The kid finally died, but the frightening part was the governments decision to kill the kid instead of leaving it up to the parents.

That's exactly what I mean about a faceless bureaucrat deciding if you live or die. It wasn't the doctors.

---

Hell, we don't even half to point our fingers at Canada for such outrageous BS. Here's how our own benevolent leader plans to take care of old people. NOTICE THE SOURCE, not Fox News or some other "right wing propoganda outlet" This is from ABC the state controlled media! Apparently when we're too old to help fund his grand social experiment he's just gonna give us some pain meds and call it good. Anyone who's actually up for four more years of this nonsense ought to have their heads examined.
Obama's Health Care Solution for Elderly - Just take a Pill - YouTube

Please! Stop! The Stupid Hurts My Brain!
But seriously, how is it even physiologically possible that people this stupid continue to live! Where do I even start? Workers in North Korea are paid a fair wage!? Che Guevarra not a mass murderer? Someone who grew up in the USSR has no clue about socialism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5lu...feature=fvwrel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The hysterical response is triggered by National stories about Canadian medicine. Like the parents of a child that had a terminal illness. They wanted to continue to treat the kid and the government refused. They wouldn't even allow the parents to purchase treatment. The hospitals were ordered to let him die. They brought the kid here to the US for treatment. The kid finally died, but the frightening part was the governments decision to kill the kid instead of leaving it up to the parents.

That's exactly what I mean about a faceless bureaucrat deciding if you live or die. It wasn't the doctors.

---

The amount of Canadian news that makes it south is laughable, as is the spin put on most of the stories that do. I'm not sure which story you are describing, but the scenario is hardly typical and I suspect that not all of the facts have been represented either. If an unfortunate situation like this arises it is likely due to the fact that new drugs or treatment are not available in Canada yet, or have yet to be approved, so naturally it will not be covered by Health Care. In the rare cases where this happens no one is forced to die, and the option of receiving treatment in the States is always there. Many times fundraisers are held at the community level and the family ends up paying nothing for the treatment. These issues are due to bureaucracy mostly in the medical industry, not some sadist government official. You know, bureaucracy, like an insurance company?

Let me put this very plainly: THERE ARE NO DEATH PANELS IN CANADA OR WITH "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE". The entire concept was foisted upon the public by insurance companies, you know, the ones with the most to lose with so-called socialized medicine. Canada's health care system may not be perfect, but there are no companies profiting by denying care to those who are dying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Hell, we don't even half to point our fingers at Canada for such outrageous BS. Here's how our own benevolent leader plans to take care of old people. NOTICE THE SOURCE, not Fox News or some other "right wing propoganda outlet" This is from ABC the state controlled media! Apparently when we're too old to help fund his grand social experiment he's just gonna give us some pain meds and call it good. Anyone who's actually up for four more years of this nonsense ought to have their heads examined.
Obama's Health Care Solution for Elderly - Just take a Pill - YouTube

---

wow. what an incredibly gross twisting of words. watch it again and listen carefully.

"what we can do is make sure at least some of the waste in the system that is not making anyone's mom better...that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care..."

MEANING...doctors are ordering tests and prescribing drugs that are NOT NEEDED because they know insurance companies are footing the bill. if you aren't footing the bill, you will take whatever test the doctor tells you to. unless maybe you work for a hospital or are a doctor, i don't see how that is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joebehar

The point of my OP was to just have a discussion. Personally, I believe government should, nay, has an obligation to administer health care for its citizens. I know, there's room for abuse, but overall its better than the alternative.

---

I am not 100% against it but why should government have an "obligation" to administer health care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Have you ever had a friend saved by a Mobile ICU?

---

Nope. But I'm certainly happy to see you finally found something you think your government is good at, even if the US government's main contribution to the development of computers was paying top dollar to buy them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

No wasn't suggesting mandatory voting but it would be much better if people saw it as a civic duty than simply throwing up their hands and saying screw it (as tempting as that may be.) I guess I haven't answered the question yet.

---

Right, so you have got no idea whatsoever what can be done, but that wouldn't stop you from bashing your fellow citizens for not doing their 'voting duty'. Even when by not voting they contribute ten times more to the society than when you vote from your high horse. Great ethic indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

+100 if you're counting on the government to be the arbitor of fair equitable and honest...Wow!

---

Didn't realize you hate the american political system so much. I'm sorry if it comes as news to you but at the end of the day the government is in fact set as the arbiter of fair, equitable and honest (cf. the founding documents of USA).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Apparently when we're too old to help fund his grand social experiment he's just gonna give us some pain meds and call it good. Anyone who's actually up for four more years of this nonsense ought to have their heads examined.

---

If that's what you got from the video, then I must say it's a good thing for you that you were born in USA and weren't required to pass listening comprehension tests in order make it to this country (I was).

Please bear with me, I'm just a stupid Southerner but I'm not sure, I'm on my high horse about anything. You mis-identified my remarks and I merely wanted to clarify that I was not advocating mandatory voting. I then go on to state an opinion that a more engaged citizenry might be useful to ensure the proper representation of the majority interest. It's only an opinion, and your are certainly well within your rights to disagree but I fail to see how that could then be stretched into me making any judgements about how much I contribute to society.

You may be on to something with regard to our government being the arbiter of fair equitable and honest. After all, this is the crux of what the constitution and the founding documents of our country are all about. But I think it's equally important to note that our government on it's current vector seems to get further and further removed from those founding principles every day. Even in a country founded on the idea that smaller government that allows maximum personal liberty is best, there seems to be an alarming tendency that government has an obligation to ensure that results are equal for everyone regardless. By definition, this requires a large and very intrusive government that extorts ever increasing amounts of money that people (yes even ordinary rednecks like me) work very hard for. If you're OK with that, great, good for you. I'll respect your right to your opinion and agree that (big surprise) we disagree.

Since liberals seem very engrained with the victim mentality, I'll put it another way. Being an American, I'm a victim of a cultural imperative that values integrity and law and order but harbors a ubiquitous disdain for bullshit and distrust of any overreaching authority (especially when it intrudes on my personal liberties to tend to my own affairs.) Many of our ancestors fled Europe for religious and politcal freedom and fought the tyranny of King George to start this country and every since have fought and when necessary died opposing tyranny in many cases for people too "enlightened" to oppose it themselves. Again, I request your indulgence but being a "stupid American" I'm far too proud to play the victim. In fact, most of us wear this cultural imperative like a damn merit badge and wouldn't want to face the world in any other context. If you disagree that's your right, if you prefer to make it a punch line, then so be it. That still doesn't change the fact that I, like most Americans would rather die opposing a tyrant than live kissing a tyrant's ass! HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobH

I would be interested in a link or two to that story before I care to comment. I can say that a friend of mine went to our local hospital and underwent tests. They found he had a heart problem and a few days later they flew him an hour and half away to under go open heart surgery. All went well and he was flown home. Virtually no out of pocket expenses. He has absolutely no complaints. You got your stories and I have mine.

Bob

---

Ok.

Canadian Family in Life Support Battle Denied Request for Hospital Transfer | Fox News

Canadian family fights to move baby on life support to U.S. - CNN.com

Tell us again about Canadian Healthcare compassion. - Cafepharma Message Boards

Newsvine - Socialized Canadian Healthcare Denies Potentially Life Saving Operation: 'Baby Joseph' taken to U.S. in last ditch effort to prolong life

I can't believe you didn't hear about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanjewell

wow. what an incredibly gross twisting of words. watch it again and listen carefully.

"what we can do is make sure at least some of the waste in the system that is not making anyone's mom better...that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care..."

MEANING...doctors are ordering tests and prescribing drugs that are NOT NEEDED because they know insurance companies are footing the bill. if you aren't footing the bill, you will take whatever test the doctor tells you to. unless maybe you work for a hospital or are a doctor, i don't see how that is a good thing.

---

Ok, great. Bureaucrats know better than your Doctor what tests you need and what is a waste of money? Since when does Obama have a medical degree?

This is exactly the kind of government Tyranny that scares the crap out of me.

Good God, Crotalus, since when is everything bad Obama's fault? What is it you can't stand about him, that he's smart or that he's not white? Spit out the Koch brothers Kool-Aid, man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

a more engaged citizenry might be useful to ensure the proper representation of the majority interest.

---

I don't think there is any evidence that higher percentage of voting citizens would change the outcome of the elections.

But really, I am not buying this 'poor stupid redneck' thing. As far as I remember you graduated college (english degree?) I presume at least partially on the taxpayers dime. And, as far as the 'high horse' I'm pretty sure you're the record holder of 'Wow, Really! (these people are so stupid, ugly, classless, uninformed, etc.)' posts on this forum.

What I have a problem with is the blatant mischaracterization of the video you posted. I viewed it and it sounds to me like a simple common sense, and if anything Obama's point is more conservative than liberal. When you only have that much money and if you have to choose between paying for grandma's cancer surgery that will extend her life by another six months, or paying for the dialysis of 12 year old kid, I think the priority is pretty clear. The insurance companies have been making far worse choices for years (preexisting conditions, dropping people's coverage).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Since liberals seem very engrained with the victim mentality

---

Wow, I hardly remember the war on christmas, the war on religion, the war on gun owners, the war on white protestant males, the war on common folk, the war on old people, the war on real america, the war on american values, the war on the job creators, the war on marriage... Or how about that lame street media?

And let's not forget that most of those ancestors who fought the tyranny of King George thought that freedom is just for the white protestant males. The contortions George Washington went to in order to keep his personal slaves while holding the POTUS office in slave-free Pennsylvania are well documented.

Things in life are not simply black and white, so when somebody starts preaching to me all about tyranny and freedom I get pretty skeptical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Ok.

Canadian Family in Life Support Battle Denied Request for Hospital Transfer | Fox News

Canadian family fights to move baby on life support to U.S. - CNN.com

Tell us again about Canadian Healthcare compassion. - Cafepharma Message Boards

Newsvine - Socialized Canadian Healthcare Denies Potentially Life Saving Operation: 'Baby Joseph' taken to U.S. in last ditch effort to prolong life

I can't believe you didn't hear about this.

---

Well, it is a year or two old so I guess old age is starting to work it's magic. If you mean this case London: Second child of Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader born with same disease as their first one | CIR: Canadian Immigration Report I can't see what is too wrong, personally. Medical opinion was upheld by a court against the wishes of the parents. A Michigan Hospital also said they could do no more for him than was already done in Canada but eventually a hospital was found in the US that would do the procedure and he survived several months more in a vegetative state. Such decisions are a tough call for anyone to make, in the end the outcome was no different on way or the other. Prolonging a life with a procedure that does nothing to treat the terminal condition is probably only comforting to the parents and not the person in a vegetative state. Like I say, tough call for anyone and you live with the decision the rest of your life. In the end there was no death squad that I can see.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Please bear with me, I'm just a stupid Southerner but I'm not sure, I'm on my high horse about anything. You mis-identified my remarks and I merely wanted to clarify that I was not advocating mandatory voting. I then go on to state an opinion that a more engaged citizenry might be useful to ensure the proper representation of the majority interest. It's only an opinion, and your are certainly well within your rights to disagree but I fail to see how that could then be stretched into me making any judgements about how much I contribute to society.

You may be on to something with regard to our government being the arbiter of fair equitable and honest. After all, this is the crux of what the constitution and the founding documents of our country are all about. But I think it's equally important to note that our government on it's current vector seems to get further and further removed from those founding principles every day. Even in a country founded on the idea that smaller government that allows maximum personal liberty is best, there seems to be an alarming tendency that government has an obligation to ensure that results are equal for everyone regardless. By definition, this requires a large and very intrusive government that extorts ever increasing amounts of money that people (yes even ordinary rednecks like me) work very hard for. If you're OK with that, great, good for you. I'll respect your right to your opinion and agree that (big surprise) we disagree.

Since liberals seem very engrained with the victim mentality, I'll put it another way. Being an American, I'm a victim of a cultural imperative that values integrity and law and order but harbors a ubiquitous disdain for bullshit and distrust of any overreaching authority (especially when it intrudes on my personal liberties to tend to my own affairs.) Many of our ancestors fled Europe for religious and politcal freedom and fought the tyranny of King George to start this country and every since have fought and when necessary died opposing tyranny in many cases for people too "enlightened" to oppose it themselves. Again, I request your indulgence but being a "stupid American" I'm far too proud to play the victim. In fact, most of us wear this cultural imperative like a damn merit badge and wouldn't want to face the world in any other context. If you disagree that's your right, if you prefer to make it a punch line, then so be it. That still doesn't change the fact that I, like most Americans would rather die opposing a tyrant than live kissing a tyrant's ass! HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY!

---

nice speech, but i hate to break it to you, you are no william wallace.
i always like it when i disagree with someone and that immediately makes me a bleeding heart liberal or a dyed in the wool conservative. it's called thinking for yourself. question everything and everyone. but the fear-mongering and "the country will never survive another four years...blah blah blah"...it's the same thing the dems said about bush. enough with the extremes! quit taking what you are fed by the party line! quit thinking republican/democrat and think right/wrong...until that happens no reasonable conversation will be had.
i've got my problems with obama and the democrats too...but i will always fall to the side of making sure my fellow man is cared for vs. my fellow corporation.
for as much money as we spend on wars, bombs, jets, etc...all i'm saying is there should be a decent minimum of care for the citizens of this country.

How can the government of a free system be the arbiter of fair, equitable and honest? Those terms are too arbitrary and based on who happens to be the prevailing faction at the moment. Just another form of tyranny - of the majority. The legitimate purpose of government as established by the founders of the US through the constitution is the preservation and protection of inalienable individual rights. Where in the constitution does it mention fair, equitable and honest? Those terms sound nice, warm and fuzzy but mean different things to different people and do not necessarily reflect the general welfare of the sovereign people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

How can the government of a free system be the arbiter of fair, equitable and honest? Those terms are too arbitrary and based on who happens to be the prevailing faction at the moment. Just another form of tyranny - of the majority. The legitimate purpose of government as established by the founders of the US through the constitution is the preservation and protection of inalienable individual rights. Where in the constitution does it mention fair, equitable and honest? Those terms sound nice, warm and fuzzy but mean different things to different people and do not necessarily reflect the general welfare of the sovereign people.

---

Who said the system is a free system? AFAIK regulations, in one form or another, have been in place since the founding of both our countries. Another point to consider is that laws and regulations, generally speaking, evolve over time just as society itself does. Fair enough, since I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society stuck in 1787 - or biblical times for that matter - and I don't know anybody who does.

I would also add that terms like "freedom" and "free system" are even more warm and fuzzy than "fair, equitable & honest".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanjewell

nice speech, but i hate to break it to you, you are no william wallace.
i always like it when i disagree with someone and that immediately makes me a bleeding heart liberal or a dyed in the wool conservative. it's called thinking for yourself. question everything and everyone. but the fear-mongering and "the country will never survive another four years...blah blah blah"...it's the same thing the dems said about bush. enough with the extremes! quit taking what you are fed by the party line! quit thinking republican/democrat and think right/wrong...until that happens no reasonable conversation will be had.
i've got my problems with obama and the democrats too...but i will always fall to the side of making sure my fellow man is cared for vs. my fellow corporation.
for as much money as we spend on wars, bombs, jets, etc...all i'm saying is there should be a decent minimum of care for the citizens of this country.

---

I wish we had a 1/2 like button!
The first half of this post is the best thing I have read in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

I wish we had a 1/2 like button!
The first half of this post is the best thing I have read in this thread.

---

Funny you should say that, I found the latter part the best of that post;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

I would also add that terms like "freedom" and "free system" are even more warm and fuzzy than "fair, equitable & honest".

---

I just hope you were fair, equitable and honest in assigning more warm and fuzzy to "freedom" and "free system" than to "fair, equitable & honest." ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryanjewell

nice speech, but i hate to break it to you, you are no william wallace.
i always like it when i disagree with someone and that immediately makes me a bleeding heart liberal or a dyed in the wool conservative. it's called thinking for yourself. question everything and everyone. but the fear-mongering and "the country will never survive another four years...blah blah blah"...it's the same thing the dems said about bush. enough with the extremes! quit taking what you are fed by the party line! quit thinking republican/democrat and think right/wrong...until that happens no reasonable conversation will be had.
i've got my problems with obama and the democrats too...but i will always fall to the side of making sure my fellow man is cared for vs. my fellow corporation.
for as much money as we spend on wars, bombs, jets, etc...all i'm saying is there should be a decent minimum of care for the citizens of this country.

---

As much as I appreciate some well placed sarcasm. I can't help but respond with a bit of my own:
1. Who pissed on your face? I was talking to Gugi
2. I don't need any instructions on how to think for myself, I'm a grown ass man and have been doing it for years. Thanks for your concern and instruction, have a nice day.
3. Uh...I think I am thinking right/wrong, this appears to be party line because the left is never right about anything.
4. As hard as you try to appear middle of the road the last line of your post is a dead give away. Talk about the party line! Sounds like a peach of an idea though, let our country be overrun by terrorists, kill the rich people, feed them to the homeless, and take their money to provide free everything for lazy shiftless potheads and 40 something hipsters who can only sit in the basement of their mother's house, smoke another joint, wonder what happened and try real hard to be be a victim or for real street cred, appear not to give a damn.
5. Sorry that people with my views annoy you so. Luckily, you can tune into MSLSD and get a thrill up your leg while listening to Chicago's favorite son tell one lie after another to anyone still misguided enough to believe the Sol Alinski, Bill Ayers, Socialist Utopian excrement that he's shoveling. As for me, being an independent thinker, I can clearly see that the Emperor is Naked. Lots of the unscrubbed masses are now starting to realize the Emperor has been naked since day 1! Fred Flintstone has a better chance of winning this election than Obama but I guess we'll see what we see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

As much as I appreciate some well placed sarcasm. I can't help but respond with a bit of my own:
1. Who pissed on your face? I was talking to Gugi
2. I don't need any instructions on how to think for myself, I'm a grown ass man and have been doing it for years. Thanks for your concern and instruction, have a nice day.
3. Uh...I think I am thinking right/wrong, this appears to be party line because the left is never right about anything.
4. As hard as you try to appear middle of the road the last line of your post is a dead give away. Talk about the party line! Sounds like a peach of an idea though, let our country be overrun by terrorists, kill the rich people, feed them to the homeless, and take their money to provide free everything for lazy shiftless potheads and 40 something hipsters who can only sit in the basement of their mother's house, smoke another joint, wonder what happened and try real hard to be be a victim or for real street cred, appear not to give a damn.
5. Sorry that people with my views annoy you so. Luckily, you can tune into MSLSD and get a thrill up your leg while listening to Chicago's favorite son tell one lie after another to anyone still misguided enough to believe the Sol Alinski, Bill Ayers, Socialist Utopian excrement that he's shoveling. As for me, being an independent thinker, I can clearly see that the Emperor is Naked. Lots of the unscrubbed masses are now starting to realize the Emperor has been naked since day 1! Fred Flintstone has a better chance of winning this election than Obama but I guess we'll see what we see.

---

I guess you proved my point about a reasonable conversation.

Gentlemen:

A small reminder here, although the Conversation forum is a bit more open, then SRP in general, we still do NOT allow personal attacks so lets take it down a notch and "Discuss" only the topic at hand, and not each other.. (That is where SRP draws the line)
We don't want to have to close the thread..

Glen Senior Mod SRP

Thanks

If anyone wants to know what the issue in this country is you have to look no further than this thread and the attitudes of the posters here.

This country is locked in a quagmire constrained by an attitude that I'm right and it's gonna be done my way and the other side is the mortal enemy and no prisoners to be taken or quarter given. Our government just reflects it's citizens and the real question is where are the radical attitudes coming from.

Our system of government is based on two sides finding common ground and that is not defined by you give me a mile and I give you an inch. No one has a divine right to dictate to others. That has been done in other countries and the results are scattered throughout history.

If the present situation continues what do you think will happen?

I think the government should provide all services that I deem essential. Everything else is just an entitlement for you freeloaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roughkype

Good God, Crotalus, since when is everything bad Obama's fault? What is it you can't stand about him, that he's smart or that he's not white? Spit out the Koch brothers Kool-Aid, man!

---

Obamacare is 100% Obama's fault. He pushed for it. Campaigned all across the country and then signed it into law.

I can't stand him because he is a President that swore to uphold the Constitution but has publicly stated that the Constitution is in his way and has just flat ignored it whenever he pleases and the chicken***t Republicans won't call him on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

If anyone wants to know what the issue in this country is you have to look no further than this thread and the attitudes of the posters here.

This country is locked in a quagmire constrained by an attitude that I'm right and it's gonna be done my way and the other side is the mortal enemy and no prisoners to be taken or quarter given. Our government just reflects it's citizens and the real question is where are the radical attitudes coming from.

Our system of government is based on two sides finding common ground and that is not defined by you give me a mile and I give you an inch. No one has a divine right to dictate to others. That has been done in other countries and the results are scattered throughout history.

If the present situation continues what do you think will happen?

---

I think Obama is deliberately trying to crash the economy to cause a crisis. He will use this crisis to suspend the Constitution so he can remake the US as a Socialist country.

There are several pointers to this.

#1 He recently revised an Executive Order giving himself control of all food, power generation, and transportation in the time of a national emergency. The order had been in place since WWII.
#2 The Department of Homeland Security just purchased several years worth of hollow point ammunition. This type of ammunition can not be used by the military.
#3 A DHS official recently stated that they were getting ready for a civil war.
#4 In the last two months the White House has re-entered negotiations with the U.N. for a firearms treaty that would ban ALL firearms in the US.

He is just waiting for an excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

If anyone wants to know what the issue in this country is you have to look no further than this thread and the attitudes of the posters here.

This country is locked in a quagmire constrained by an attitude that I'm right and it's gonna be done my way and the other side is the mortal enemy and no prisoners to be taken or quarter given. Our government just reflects it's citizens and the real question is where are the radical attitudes coming from.

Our system of government is based on two sides finding common ground and that is not defined by you give me a mile and I give you an inch. No one has a divine right to dictate to others. That has been done in other countries and the results are scattered throughout history.

If the present situation continues what do you think will happen?

---

As an outsider looking in, that is exactly what I am seeing and thinking. Some of the possible answers to the last question are just a tad bit scary. OTH have at her boys just don't take a dump in my back yard if it gets rough. Hope it all works out for ya.

Bob