The Government needs to stop protecting people from themselves!

[pumped99]

Lets face it, people are idiots. Everyday I am surrounded by people so stupid it makes my head hurt. Honestly. The government just needs to stop protecting people from themselves! I am not talking about Law Enforcement or violent crime, I am just talking about people who like to do things that have the capability to hurt only themselves, who cares. The country needs to be weeded anyway.

[Tock]

100% agree.
But that would mean giving people the right to think and do for themselves, and that is against the line of thinking of an awful lot of people (and politicians) . . .
-Tock

[tryingtogetbig]

In theory and at first glance it sounds good. And of course it goes along with Tocks anti-politician inniative as well...but it also opens more doors for the same people to biatch.

Scenario....stupid person doesn't want to wear seatbelt...okay...only hurting himself..Right? Sure, but then stupid person gets into a wreck...and what do you know, the stupid person doesn't have any insurance. So, the taxpayers have to pay for the stupid person's injuries, lifelong disabilities, and support him for the rest of his life. Stupid person only hurt himself....NO.

hhmmm....crazy control freak government...what were you thinking?

peace,

ttgb

[mass junkie]

Yeah I agree with this thread......I operate an onling gambling site which is being threatend to be closed down by the government for pish posh reasons

The government wants you to leave your house to lose your money. You Have to go to a nearby indian reservation, buy a lottery ticket, go the the race track or Vegas or Atlantic City or a river boat or card house, etc.

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT PERMITTED TO ENDURE THE HORROR OF LOSING MONEY IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME!!!

[Tock]

In theory and at first glance it sounds good. And of course it goes along with Tocks anti-politician inniative as well...but it also opens more doors for the same people to biatch.

Scenario....stupid person doesn't want to wear seatbelt...okay...only hurting himself..Right? Sure, but then stupid person gets into a wreck...and what do you know, the stupid person doesn't have any insurance. So, the taxpayers have to pay for the stupid person's injuries, lifelong disabilities, and support him for the rest of his life. Stupid person only hurt himself....NO.

hhmmm....crazy control freak government...what were you thinking?

peace,

ttgb

Mon ami, it sounds like you actually are willing to give up your personal freedoms in exchange for security.
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
- Thomas Jefferson

-Tock

[juicehoe]

i agree... they have to protect the 80% morons from themselfs. Which leaves the other 20% shaking our heads. I like mexicos ideals on Rx's

[tryingtogetbig]

Mon ami, it sounds like you actually are willing to give up your personal freedoms in exchange for security.
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
- Thomas Jefferson

-Tock

Geez Tock...give that up. I enjoy the personal freedoms I have, for example, which group (since you are always bashing GW) is the one wanting to take away my gun ownership rights...it's the group (democraps) you say you are closer affiliated with than the Republican group. You always use only small pieces of information to construe them to fit your ideals.

And again...you didn't even address the scenario I presented. Selective aren't we?

peace,

ttgb

[Tock]

Geez Tock...give that up. I enjoy the personal freedoms I have,
1) for example, which group (since you are always bashing GW) is the one wanting to take away my gun ownership rights...it's the group (democraps)
2) you say you are closer affiliated with than the Republican group.
3) You always use only small pieces of information to construe them to fit your ideals.

4) And again...you didn't even address the scenario I presented. Selective aren't we?

peace,

ttgb

1) Um, I think you'll find that support for anti-gun legislation from Democrats is pretty hard to come by outside of states with gun problems, like New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. Here in Texas, even the liberal Governor Ann Richards owned shotguns and rifles and etc and was an avid hunter.
On the other hand, you'll find prominant Republicans like Nancy and Ronald Reagan supporting gun control in the larger states as well.
2) Yes, I am closer to the Democratic party's ideals primarily because if Republicans had their way, they'd turn the US government into a theocracy and burn my ass at the stake.
The Green and Libertarian philosophy make more sense than either, because both provide for a better way to settle mideast problems, and the Libertarian philosophy is more akin to the smaller government the US had 100+ years ago.
3) Oh brother . . .
4) Ok, here goes . . .
If you want to drive a car, fine. You can insure yourself against the risks, or you can decide not to. If you get hurt while driving and you don't have medical insurance, tough for you. There's no reason why taxpayers should have to pay your medical bills just because you refused to buy insurance or because you couldn't afford insurance. You took the risk, you pay the piper.
Sounds tough, cruel, and hard-hearted, but it's exactly how people lived before the era of big government. The up side of this arrangement is that without big government, you have the right to choose things for yourself without the government meddling in your personal business.

Also, just as you feel it is proper for the government to require seat belt use to keep people driving without insurance from becoming dependant on public hospitals, what's to prevent the government from requiring people to eat healthy (according to its approved list of foods) to prevent similar dependance on public medical care? Once the precedents are allowed to remain, there's no telling where the gov't will take things . . .

IMHO, the Libertarian approach to these situations is the wisest . . . Of course, if you're a fan of big government, go right ahead and support these Republican sponsored bits of legislative trash. Just don't complain about the gov't restricting your access to AS.

-Tock

[tryingtogetbig]

1) Um, I think you'll find that support for anti-gun legislation from Democrats is pretty hard to come by outside of states with gun problems, like New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. Here in Texas, even the liberal Governor Ann Richards owned shotguns and rifles and etc and was an avid hunter.
On the other hand, you'll find prominant Republicans like Nancy and Ronald Reagan supporting gun control in the larger states as well.

Ann Richards would be ran out of Texas if she ever tried to pass more gun controls. I don't like her, but I never said she wasn't intelligent.

Ronald and Nancy Reagan...dam Tock...you really had to go back on that one. Oh yeah, I call Bullshiat on that one anyway. Show me.

Democrats are passing FEDERAL gun control laws...how is that only affecting a certain number of big states? Bill Clinton was the proponent of the Brady Bill.

2) Yes, I am closer to the Democratic party's ideals primarily because if Republicans had their way, they'd turn the US government into a theocracy and burn my ass at the stake.
The Green and Libertarian philosophy make more sense than either, because both provide for a better way to settle mideast problems, and the Libertarian philosophy is more akin to the smaller government the US had 100+ years ago.

They wouldn't burn you at the stake...may make certain groups of people admit that they are different from the social norm and won't ever be the same, but they wouldn't burn you at the stake.

3) Oh brother . . .

Oh brother.... Tock, the democrats are more about higher taxes, bigger government, more social reform, etc. So, how are you not saying the government needs to get out of your business and that the democratic party is closer to your beliefs. If you were not gay and believed in the Bible, you beliefs would line up very close to the Republican party.

)40 Ok, here goes . . .
If you want to drive a car, fine. You can insure yourself against the risks, or you can decide not to. If you get hurt while driving and you don't have medical insurance, tough for you. There's no reason why taxpayers should have to pay your medical bills just because you refused to buy insurance or because you couldn't afford insurance. You took the risk, you pay the piper.

Reality break here Tock...not everyone carries insurance. Then, if the government doesn't pay nor provide their medical treatment then all of the liberals in the world start bitching about how bad the USA is because it won't take care of its own. You have argued this point yourself...which is it...government provided health care or a cruel hard hearted approach. These tendencies of yours to straddle the fence are what I am referring to. The Democrats would love to provide every sorry piece of trash with the same health care as someone that works 70 hours a week and pays for the insurance instead of spending all of their money on beer and cigarrettes while living off of wealfare.

Sounds tough, cruel, and hard-hearted, but it's exactly how people lived before the era of big government. The up side of this arrangement is that without big government, you have the right to choose things for yourself without the government meddling in your personal business.

Again, you sound like a Republican.

Also, just as you feel it is proper for the government to require seat belt use to keep people driving without insurance from becoming dependant on public hospitals, what's to prevent the government from requiring people to eat healthy (according to its approved list of foods) to prevent similar dependance on public medical care? Once the precedents are allowed to remain, there's no telling where the gov't will take things . . .

Same principle as above still applies. The democrats are more big government than republicans have ever thought about being.

IMHO, the Libertarian approach to these situations is the wisest . . . Of course, if you're a fan of big government, go right ahead and support these Republican sponsored bits of legislative trash.

The libertarian approach is not a bad approach. We agree there. But, it something that you and I will never see come to power. So, for now, choosing the party that actually has a chance and supports the majority of your views is the smarter option. IMO.

Just don't complain about the gov't restricting your access to AS.

Oh brother....are you saying that if the Libertarian party came to power, I could buy AS down at the corner Eckerds? Clinton was in office for the last 8 years and AS purchase was just as hard as ever...so I know that's can't be what you were trying to say!?

peace,

ttgb

[decadbal]

its very simple, we let it all come to this, us and our parents, so we reap what we sew, all we have to do is stand up and express ourself and makes some changes, instead of bitchin on a board that has no effect on the real goverment...

[jeffylyte]

i guess people will never learn. neither major party wants small government or more freedom. They only want the freedoms that they agree with and not others and state control over the issues they care about.

for example, do republicans want freedom and strong state govt's? what about medical marijuana? Bush cracked down on Calif. Or oregon's assisted suicide.. Bush cracked down. Gay marriage? While DOMA's clause allowing a state to ignore another states gay marriage is fine (and legal), the defining of marriage between a man and woman prevents a state from establishing its own policy and is a federal usurpation of power (and illegal). shall I mention the Patriot Act? or how about the fact that spending has risen faster (as percentage and amount) in teh past four years than in the history of the U.S.

are the democrats better? Maybe compared to Bush 2, but not versus Bush 1 Shall we talk about the Brady bill? We could go into bunch of others, but suffice it to say that they are in general, just as bad in this regard. In general I think that Democrats try to take away freedoms to try to make a perfect society and the republicans to try to make a moral society.

basically, neither belives in choice, freedom, or individuality and both think that goverenment should have all the power.

[Tock]

1) Ronald and Nancy Reagan...dam Tock...you really had to go back on that one. Oh yeah, I call Bullshiat on that one anyway. Show me.

2) Democrats are passing FEDERAL gun control laws...how is that only affecting a certain number of big states? Bill Clinton was the proponent of the Brady Bill.

3) They wouldn't burn you at the stake...may make certain groups of people admit that they are different from the social norm and won't ever be the same, but they wouldn't burn you at the stake.

4) Oh brother....
4a) Tock, the democrats are more about higher taxes,
4b) bigger government,
4c) more social reform,
4d) etc. So, how are you not saying the government needs to get out of your business and that the democratic party is closer to your beliefs. If you were not gay and believed in the Bible, you beliefs would line up very close to the Republican party.

5) Reality break here Tock...not everyone carries insurance.

6) Then, if the government doesn't pay nor provide their medical treatment then all of the liberals in the world start bitching about how bad the USA is because it won't take care of its own.

7) You have argued this point yourself...which is it...government provided health care or a cruel hard hearted approach.

8) These tendencies of yours to straddle the fence are what I am referring to.

9) The Democrats would love to provide every sorry piece of trash with the same health care as someone that works 70 hours a week and pays for the insurance instead of spending all of their money on beer and cigarrettes while living off of wealfare.

10) Again, you sound like a Republican.

11) Same principle as above still applies. The democrats are more big government than republicans have ever thought about being.

12) The libertarian approach is not a bad approach. We agree there. But, it something that you and I will never see come to power.

13) So, for now, choosing the party that actually has a chance and supports the majority of your views is the smarter option. IMO.

14) Oh brother....are you saying that if the Libertarian party came to power, I could buy AS down at the corner Eckerds?

15) Clinton was in office for the last 8 years and AS purchase was just as hard as ever...so I know that's can't be what you were trying to say!?

16) peace,

ttgb

1) I saw Nancy Reagan at some anti-gun occasion with Sarah Brady on TV a while back, and assume that since she was present at that sort of shindig with the head of HandGun Control, she had no small sympathy for the cause. I wasn't able to find a reference to it, though.
It shouldn't come as much of a surprise, because she is also breaking ranks with most conservative Republicans on the issue of stem cell research, as technological developments with stem cells may hold the solution to those afflicted with Alzheimer's, including her husband. As she isn't very open about her stem cell research support, she is also reticent to speak out on the gun control issue, for reasons best understood by her . . .

I did, however, find a few other prominant Republican supporters of gun control:
1a) http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/28/brady.anniversary/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former White House spokesman James Brady on Wednesday called for more gun-control laws, just two days before the 20th anniversary of the assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan.

1b) http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a374449622dc7.htm
Hatch, Republicans Offer up More Gun Control
---an amendment introduced by Republican Senator John Ashcroft (MO) which further criminalized the possession of certain firearms by young adults.
---Then there was the Hatch/Craig amendment, named after Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Larry Craig (R-ID). This anti-gun amendment passed

Again, IMHO, it seems to me that different states have different needs on this issue. Residents in a state like Montana live in a totally different environment than those in New Jersey, or New York City, or LA, and I'd say the gun control laws should be tailored accordingly. But, the 2nd Amendment does restrict restrictions on guns, so I dunno how anyone could figure out a legal way to do this . . . Ain't a big concern of mine, so I haven't spent much brainpower on it. I'll leave that up to you . . .


2) Not now they ain't. Not enough Democrats to make a majority.

3) Give the Dominionists enough time and opportunity, and yes, they will be more than happy to dispose of gays with violence. Do a yahoo search on "Dominionist" and see what you turn up. And should you doubt there are any in positions of influence today, you'll discover that at least one Supreme Court Justice is and another is sympathetic, several more are US Senators and Congressmen, and probably a bunch more in Bush's cabinet.

4)
4a) --and balanced budgets. Maybe you don't mind the "Borrow and Spend" approach to paying bills, but it ain't good business sense, no more than if you ran up bills you couldn't pay on your credit cards.
4b) Government is lots bigger now under Bush II, but I don't hear any complaints?
4c) What social reforms don't you like? Democrats have led social reforms against child labor, for the 8 hour work day, for equal voting rights for women and blacks, for the rights of black to marry whites, for equal civil rights for blacks, and lately, have been in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians. Pretty good record, IMHO.
But again, what social reforms do you not like?
4d) Both the Libertarian and Green party are in favor of the social reforms embraced by Democrats. Republicans, nowadays, are about 100 years behind the times on these issues. Nevertheless, both the Libertarian and Greens are more in line with other issues I favor, like abolishing the Drug War (which has not accomplished anything it set out to do, yet costs the American public billions of $$$ every year), and settling the problems in the middle east, and some others. Hence, I favor the Greens the most, then the Libertarians, then the Democrats, and then only if I was persuaded by someone's .357 would I ever vote for a Republican.
I hope I explained things well enough this time . . .

5) Reality break -- it's against the law in most states to drive an automobile without insurance. There is no justification for operating a motor vehicle without it; if you should run over a pedestrian, you had better be able to pay for the medical bills. Period. Anyone who drives without insurance (or without a big wad of $$$ available to pay for their accidents) should, IMHO, go to jail.
Last I heard, here in Texas about 25% of all the cars on the road are not insured. Consequently, those folks responsible enough to ensure financial ability to compensate accident victims end up paying the medical bills of those without through Texas public health system (higher taxes). Plus, if someone drives their uninsured vehicle into another with only liability insurance, then the victim is screwed. The cops don't enforce the insurance laws here in Texas, and it absolutely sucks. I lost two cars due to uninsured drivers.

6) Ya, well, IMHO, I'd say the libertarian approach is best . . . "you want medical care, buy insurance." There's something to be said, though, for giving some slack to kids and the elderly. Everyone else, though, should pay their own way.

7) True . . . medical care for the poor is pretty awful. Here in Dallas, if you have a broken leg and go to the charity hospital, you'll probably sit in the waiting room for 12 hours before a doctor can look at you.
Problem there is, everyone without health insurance takes their kid there for colds, flus, stuff that needs a band-aid, basic health care, and they overwhelm the system. Now if these people would stop having children they cannot afford, and make use of birth control or abortion, we wouldn't have the strain on public health systems that we've got now.
But then, you get anti-abortion nuts get bent out of shape and demand that every fetus must be taken to full term, but then disappear when it comes time to pay for the **** medical bills. And then you get that idiot, the Pope, telling billions of poor starving horney heterosexuals all over the planet that it's a vile sin to even use a condom, and instead they should have lots and lots of children . . . then he disappears into his absent-minded luxury when it comes time to pay for all of their medical bills.
JHC, I say abort the **** lot of 'em . . . the poor, their kids, the **** anti-abortionists, and in particular, the god**** pope . . .
rant rant rant . . .

8) It sucks to see both (or more) sides of an issue . . . maybe you don't have this problem, but I do . . .

9) Not me.

10) Your'e asking for a fist sandwich now . . . them's fightin' words in my neighborhood . . .

11) I covered that. Check out how much corporate welfare the gov't hands out now compared to what went on in the Clinton years. And see which of the two parties have been more fiscally responsible over the last 20 years.

12) It sure won't come to power if you don't vote for it. You're guaranteed more crap with both the Democrats and the Republicans. But, as I am wont to say, vote your conscience.

13) In your opinion.

14) Yes.

15) Yes it is. The Libertarian party would most likely do away with 80 to 90% of the federal government, if they were in control. The FDA would probably be an early target, as would Welfare, Social Security, $$$ for corporate subsidies. It's an interesting approach to government that has some very good points. Basically, it removes control and power from the government and gives it back to citizens. Of course, to cope, people have to learn to do for themselves . . . fund their own business, pay for their own educations, medical care, etc etc. and in general, just be responsible for themselves instead of making the government be responsible for them.

16) all right, just don't call me a Republican . . .

--Tock

[markas214]

Geez Tock...give that up. I enjoy the personal freedoms I have, for example, which group (since you are always bashing GW) is the one wanting to take away my gun ownership rights...it's the group (democraps) you say you are closer affiliated with than the Republican group. You always use only small pieces of information to construe them to fit your ideals.

And again...you didn't even address the scenario I presented. Selective aren't we?

peace,

ttgb

John Ashcroft!

[markas214]

i guess people will never learn. neither major party wants small government or more freedom. They only want the freedoms that they agree with and not others and state control over the issues they care about.

basically, neither belives in choice, freedom, or individuality and both think that goverenment should have all the power.

You summed it up perfectly. If the Libertarian Party could come up with a better candidate than Linden LaRouch (sp) it may force the 2 major parties to back off on their assualts on personal freedoms and our ability to live as we choose as long as we are doing no harm to others.

[Tock]

You summed it up perfectly. If the Libertarian Party could come up with a better candidate than Linden LaRouch (sp) it may force the 2 major parties to back off on their assualts on personal freedoms and our ability to live as we choose as long as we are doing no harm to others.

Um, Lyndon LaRouche has absolutely nothing to do with the Libertarian party. Do a web search and you'll see what he's up to . . . on a par with the nuts who say George Bush and the Queen of England are shapeshifting lizards.
--Tock