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

[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

[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!

[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

[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.

[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