|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 8, 2006 11:00:32 GMT -5
A recent poll finds that most Americans believe that government is doing too much. "A quarter century after the Reagan revolution and a dozen years after Republicans vaulted into control of Congress, a new CNN poll finds most Americans still agree with the bedrock conservative premise that, as the Gipper put it, "government is not the answer to our problems -- government is the problem."" www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/27/poll.government/index.htmlWhat do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by John Galt on Nov 9, 2006 18:37:51 GMT -5
Who am I?
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 10, 2006 9:33:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 10, 2006 10:25:48 GMT -5
Well...for those who wish to know "Who John Galt is" read his fictitious speech from the text of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (below). The message is Libertarian and basically says that one need only depend on himself and not on anyone else (government) to think and do for him.
Apparently, we have many free thinking, cerebral types on this board and that is admirable. It's a good balance. However, a few posters have complained that too many of our newest posters speak in paradox and not in the real world terminology they would prefer. Some simply wish to confront and deal directly with the real world issues that we face, rather than be forced to unravel enigmas or to interpret the meanings of many historical and obscure passages from the archives of fact or fiction.
Since the board is set up for Everyone's participation, enjoyment and enlightenment there should be no boundaries set on the writing styles of anyone. I, myself, have learned alot from some of these seemingly "cryptic" postings - it challenges us to research, consider and think. They give the board some added value in helping us better appreciate the written word. My vote is to continue on and - in Libertarian terms - read what we want and accept/reject what we please.
Marc
John Galt's Speech
mini-version
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jul 5, 2007 11:41:23 GMT -5
While I see we have been hit with another post of random garbage, it's interesting to see that this time they pulled up a rather interesting old thread...so why not take this opportunity to bring back this conversation...
Does Government do too much? In my opinion, absolutely. I don't consider myself a conservative, or a liberal, a republican or a democrat (though I realized recently that I am registered now as a republican...I must have succumbed to my father's will at some point and changed over from my traditional "independent" category).
Anyhow...I believe that government has a role in our society, but through the course of history, government has far overstepped its bounds and is now so entrenched in so many aspects of our lives that it is ridiculous.
I realize some will call me foolish and perhaps nostalgic...but read Thomas Paine's Common Sense...I recently finished reading is again (I pick it up every couple years) and as always it leaves me with a sense of yearning for simpler times. I have also done a great deal of reading and studying the history of the founding fathers and the drafting of the Constitution (another document everyone should read, especially those who choose to quote it - often times they get things wrong), and in my own opinion, if Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington, etc were to come back today and see what the United States government has become...they would be ashamed.
Without going off on too much of a rant, let me just pose a few questions that deal with too much government involvement in our lives, or basically government making itself bigger than it should be...
Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has anything to do with education? (No Child Left Behind)
Where in the Constitution does it say that the entire number of electoral votes from the various states will go solely to one candidate for President? (That one's for all of you Al Gore fans)
Why do we have term limits for one branch of government (the executive) but not for the other branches? (legislative and judicial)
Since when is it the government's responsibility to set aside tax payer money to deal with the black bear population in our state?
Why is it the government's responsibility to provide someone with an unemployment check if they get fired from their job? This one I know will get some people mad...but think about it...how many people go on unemployment and are work hard to find a new job so they can get off of it as soon as possible???
And to make a local reference...why does the government feel it has the right to tell me whether or not I can have a fire pit in my backyard? Or even to tell me what I can or can not have around that fire pit in order to not be fined for it? Is it not my property?
These are obviously just a very small example of government getting too full of itself...again in my opinion.
I have a very simple ideal when it comes to government involvement in our lives...do what you want with you and yours, and leave me and mine alone.
Personally, I see one factor as the major cause of government getting too big...career politicians. There are people (you need look no further than one of our state senators) who go through school with one goal in mind...to be a politician for the rest of their lives. Don't get me wrong...choosing to serve as an elected official in any regard and on any level is a decent thing to do. Whether I agree with them or not, the fact that someone is willing to step up and run for office, or get involved in some manner is always an admirable trait. But when you dedicate your entire career solely to being a politician, you lose touch with those that you are claiming to represent...no matter how many times you try to show otherwise.
This is exactly why we need term limits in our legislative branches of government on all levels. In my opinion, people should get out into the real world, work for a living, and then if they choose to run for office, they can...but when their time is up, they have to go back to the working world and get a job again. Politicians who are in office for too long, or who jump from one office to the next to the next lose touch with Americans...and guess who winds up paying as a result?? Yep...us Americans who put them into office.
Alright...I have gone on way too long about this...
Getting back to the main point...yes...I feel that government does too much. We need to scale back the need for government in every aspect of our lives...and I keep searching for a candidate who has the guts to do just that.
|
|
|
|
Post by someoneyouknowwell on Jul 5, 2007 12:13:13 GMT -5
Stay on? With what unemployment pays? You must know all the wrong people. Hell, with the often irresponsible and disloyal way bosses and companies act these days, I'll take money that I put into my UI fund. And, those bosses, who overuse the phrase "employer at will," need to pay the balance, because there is no "bill paying at will," in our state. Haven't you heard?
My dad had one job for 35 years. I don't know anyone, who hasn't gotten laid off from their jobs after three of four years (especially white collar employees), at most. Some of the over 40's group have been out of work for years and have lost their homes and their kid's college fund. It's a different world today, fella, and not necessarily a better one. It would be better if the people gave a d**n like they used to. So, who wanted to be a little nostalgic?
So, I guess when you burn down my house along with yours, you'll cover the cost of putting out the fire and for the cop re-routing traffic around the fire trucks, too? And, while you are at it...tell the Mexicans living next door that furnace heats the house not the Chiminea!
You forgot the most relevant one...LIBERTARIAN.
Someoneyouknowwell
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jul 5, 2007 12:40:28 GMT -5
Stay on? With what unemployment pays? You must know all the wrong people. Hell, with the often irresponsible and disloyal way bosses and companies act these days, I'll take money that I put into my UI fund. And, those bosses, who overuse the phrase "employer at will," need to pay the balance, because there is no "bill paying at will," in our state. Haven't you heard? My dad had one job for 35 years. I don't know anyone, who hasn't gotten laid off from their jobs after three of four years (especially white collar employees), at most. Some of the over 40's group have been out of work for years and have lost their homes and their kid's college fund. It's a different world today, fella, and not necessarily a better one. It would be better if the people gave a d**n like they used to. So, who wanted to be a little nostalgic? So, I guess when you burn down my house along with yours, you'll cover the cost of putting out the fire and for the cop re-routing traffic around the fire trucks, too? And, while you are at it...tell the Mexicans living next door that furnace heats the house not the Chiminea! You forgot the most relevant one...LIBERTARIAN. Someoneyouknowwell ...I won't burn down my house, your house or anyone else's house for that matter because I know that if I want the luxury of having a fire pit in my backyard, I have to take on the responsibility of making sure that fire pit does not damage my own property or anyone else's for that matter...why do I need the government to tell me whether or not I can have a fire pit, or what I need to have around my fire pit? |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jul 5, 2007 13:12:00 GMT -5
While I see we have been hit with another post of random garbage, it's interesting to see that this time they pulled up a rather interesting old thread...so why not take this opportunity to bring back this conversation... Does Government do too much? In my opinion, absolutely. I don't consider myself a conservative, or a liberal, a republican or a democrat (though I realized recently that I am registered now as a republican...I must have succumbed to my father's will at some point and changed over from my traditional "independent" category). Anyhow...I believe that government has a role in our society, but through the course of history, government has far overstepped its bounds and is now so entrenched in so many aspects of our lives that it is ridiculous. I realize some will call me foolish and perhaps nostalgic...but read Thomas Paine's Common Sense...I recently finished reading is again (I pick it up every couple years) and as always it leaves me with a sense of yearning for simpler times. I have also done a great deal of reading and studying the history of the founding fathers and the drafting of the Constitution (another document everyone should read, especially those who choose to quote it - often times they get things wrong), and in my own opinion, if Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington, etc were to come back today and see what the United States government has become...they would be ashamed. Without going off on too much of a rant, let me just pose a few questions that deal with too much government involvement in our lives, or basically government making itself bigger than it should be... Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has anything to do with education? (No Child Left Behind) Where in the Constitution does it say that the entire number of electoral votes from the various states will go solely to one candidate for President? (That one's for all of you Al Gore fans) Why do we have term limits for one branch of government (the executive) but not for the other branches? (legislative and judicial) Since when is it the government's responsibility to set aside tax payer money to deal with the black bear population in our state? Why is it the government's responsibility to provide someone with an unemployment check if they get fired from their job? This one I know will get some people mad...but think about it...how many people go on unemployment and are work hard to find a new job so they can get off of it as soon as possible??? And to make a local reference...why does the government feel it has the right to tell me whether or not I can have a fire pit in my backyard? Or even to tell me what I can or can not have around that fire pit in order to not be fined for it? Is it not my property? These are obviously just a very small example of government getting too full of itself...again in my opinion. I have a very simple ideal when it comes to government involvement in our lives...do what you want with you and yours, and leave me and mine alone. Personally, I see one factor as the major cause of government getting too big...career politicians. There are people (you need look no further than one of our state senators) who go through school with one goal in mind...to be a politician for the rest of their lives. Don't get me wrong...choosing to serve as an elected official in any regard and on any level is a decent thing to do. Whether I agree with them or not, the fact that someone is willing to step up and run for office, or get involved in some manner is always an admirable trait. But when you dedicate your entire career solely to being a politician, you lose touch with those that you are claiming to represent...no matter how many times you try to show otherwise. This is exactly why we need term limits in our legislative branches of government on all levels. In my opinion, people should get out into the real world, work for a living, and then if they choose to run for office, they can...but when their time is up, they have to go back to the working world and get a job again. Politicians who are in office for too long, or who jump from one office to the next to the next lose touch with Americans...and guess who winds up paying as a result?? Yep...us Americans who put them into office. Alright...I have gone on way too long about this... Getting back to the main point...yes...I feel that government does too much. We need to scale back the need for government in every aspect of our lives...and I keep searching for a candidate who has the guts to do just that. You missed some much better examples. Why does government need to save money for retirement for people who won't save themselves? Why does government need to teach our kids about sex? In fact, why does government need to teach our kids period? Well -- the simple answer is -- we get the government we either want or deserve. If your government is wasting your money -- and it is -- you need to be a more active participant in the process to stop the waste, fraud, and abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Someoneyouknowwell on Jul 5, 2007 14:03:10 GMT -5
Now there's an interesting thought...let government take the entire social security kitty and match individual's 401K and IRA savings. This way, monies would be distributed in a fair way, with the savers being rewarded, while the others only get to consider the savings incentives being offered.
This one get's a B grade. You are on the money, in principle.
However, the government gets involved in these things because a large segment of the population acts irresponsibly and ruins it for the rest of us. I taught my own kids about the "birds and the bees" and they seem to have learned well - no childhood pregnancies nor STD's, as of yet. The neighbor next door had two kids by age 16 and is suspected to have slept with every male in the whole - God only knows that she isn't HIV positive. So, because her own single mom failed to do her job, way back in the early 80's - when the daughter had her kids - we have already paid the expenses for this new single mom and her own kids, 5 times over. And, what have the kids learned from their role models?
The history of education in America is deplorable. We've never gotten it right since the beginning. The question is - who and what replaces government in the organized education realm? Private schools? If there weren't anyone to regulate them the quality of education would not only lack major standards and equivalent results, but the corruption that would ensue would be mind-boggling. Are you aware of the troubles had by the the private career schools in this country? The owners have gotten away with murder taking loans, training monies and even photocopying text books after students have paid for the hard copies.
Problem is there is often too much government when we just need better (run) government. It's a case of less being more.
Someoneyouknowwell
|
|
|
|
Post by Someoneyouknowwell on Jul 5, 2007 14:27:28 GMT -5
Tell that to the neighbor, who wanted the luxury of having a Dog and then let him outside to bark at 3 am?
I can think of several dozen cases of irresponsible actions that inconvenience others. Not everyone is as thoughtful and as respectful as you or me. Consider:
How about the kid that put out his friend's eye with a fire cracker?
Why should my kid lose an eye, because someone else's parents don't care what his or her kid is doing with "explosives"? It only takes a second for this kind of accident to happen.
Or, the neighbor, who let's his woodpile, out back, become a rat's nest for the neighborhood? In fact, he also let's his backyard become a total refuse dump with old appliances and garbage strewn around. And, why do I have to be bitten by a rat, because my neighbor doesn't care what his backyard looks like?
In the case of Fire pits, the Borough Council actually over-ruled the state fire prevention codes, which need to be updated to include the use of outdoor fireplaces, in the first place. My understanding is that Gary Jackson, a fire official, advised the Boro that these things were not allowed here, at all, according to his interpretation of the existing fire codes. Now, they are permitted - without a permit - but with safety regulations in place to protect us all from the fools that might put us at unnecessary risk.
As to what goes around the fire pit or Chiminea? Just look on line or read the box they comes in. It usually says that these things should be placed 10' feet from a dwelling and not on a deck...hmmm...makes sense. Some boxes I've also seen say...before you buy one of these items, check with your local code officer for state and local regulations. Therefore, the manufacturers know they are playing with fire and assume that there needs to be rules to protect people from misuse of these items.
Someoneyouknowwell
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jul 5, 2007 15:01:40 GMT -5
There are many situations in life where I, you, and anyone else will be "inconvenienced"...you know what? sometimes that's just too darn bad.
If I have a problem with a neighbors dog barking, or with the condition of his backyard...I'll go to the neighbor and try to work it out. I'll even put down some rat poison along our property line if need be. I don't feel it's the responsibility of the government to make my life free of "inconveniences".
And I trust that you have raised your children to know that when they see someone playing around with fireworks, they will back off because they know that it's not a safe situation. Do accidents happen? Of course, and it can sometimes have tragic results, but does that mean we need the government to further regulate our lives?
One last thing on the fire pits...I can understand the idea that we want to educate people as to the proper way to handle something as volatile as fire can potentially be, but the fact is that government seldom does this by actually "educating" the population, but rather by passing laws and codes, and then simply fining people when they have violated those codes...whether they were acting safely or not. That's where I have a problem.
I can't continue to argue this point, it's obvious we just don't agree here, and that's just a part of life too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Jul 5, 2007 15:38:12 GMT -5
How about an even BETTER example of the government intruding in the lives of its citizens.
Gay Marriage anyone?
I am told that legally I cannot get married to someone I love (hypothetically) because that person is of the same sex. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, to be quite honest. It has nothing to do with the safety of others.
I wish the government would give me one VALID reason, without bringing religion into it, why I cannot marry someone of the same sex.
FR
|
|
|
|
Post by Someoneyouknowwell on Jul 5, 2007 15:44:38 GMT -5
No way - life is too short and something can be done about it, by law, short of encountering road rage. I want to live in your neighborhood, if you think a "pretty please with sugar on top" will settle every ignorant neighbor's selfish actions.
And, if that neighbor told you to go to hell or worse....? Wouldn't be the first time things got out of control on a street. There is no consistency in man's actions and in a community, as in a nation it's our laws that are supposed to keep us from devolving into anger and chaos.
You sit on the Board of Education. So, you aren't you really telling us that you are not really needed? Just let the teachers, teach the kids without the bureaucracy? Fire the Principals that are in charge of disciplining the bad kids and dealing with staff issues like sexual harassment, pulling kid's hair and possibly, sleeping with them. Drop the Superintendent, too.
No more detentions or suspensions when children step out of line? Expect that the parents have all, equally, done a great job with their kids and that there will be no problems for educators to deal with? Even from the parents that have been reported to DYFS or may eventually be.
Surprisingly, I can agree with you here. But, this situation relates more to the quality of efforts rather than the need for laws and codes in the first place. It's more about execution, not intent. Let's see how/if the Borough "educates" the people with fire pits.
Yup and Yup. But, mostly, just this one time. I've been reading this board for awhile. I'm usually impressed with what you have to say. It's just that I'm off this week and sounding off more than I probably will ever have time to do, again.
Someoneyouknowwell
|
|
|
|
Post by Someoneyouknowwell on Jul 5, 2007 16:04:43 GMT -5
F F This is a little off base from our main discussion. Your issue is much more politically charged and philosophically oriented than it is practical within this particular discussion. The short response to your point is that it is probably a better example of the intrusiveness of government, posted here today. I just don't want to get into it's defense or opposition right now. It doesn't relate well to the type of government intrusiveness we are talking about this time around, unless you propose that Gay Marriages take place in front of fire pits or presided over by barking dogs at 3 am.  |
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Jul 5, 2007 16:08:09 GMT -5
I don't see how it is any different from those types of issues, although the fire pit issue is a matter of safety.
But my point is that the current administration, which is supposed to be about LESS government, is actually about MORE government. Much more government actually than I have seen in previous administrations.
FR
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 5, 2007 16:22:58 GMT -5
I don't see how it is any different from those types of issues, although the fire pit issue is a matter of safety. But my point is that the current administration, which is supposed to be about LESS government, is actually about MORE government. Much more government actually than I have seen in previous administrations. FR FR, I am going to partly agree with you and expand a bit. You are right, and I do believe the feds should have no hand in marriage. But, that would also indicate that the courts would stay out of it as well. The gay activists would not accept the Courts lack of involvement because that is how they get their agenda enacted. To go further and demonstrate why I think the gay marriage issue is a joke is as follows. Do you really care what the government thinks of your life and your choices? I do not. The feds and state can both take their views and laws pertaining to my marriage and stick them up the wazoo. At the end of the day, my wife and I will live our lives as we see fit with out concern of big bro. What say you, FR? |
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jul 5, 2007 18:33:14 GMT -5
Freehold Resident...you're example is obviously a much more controversial one...in fact I was trying to avoid examples that would stir too much emotion...but since you opened the door... ;D
Personally, I don't think the government should have any say, whatsoever, over any type of marriage. In my eyes, "marriage" is something that happens in the church in front of god (whichever church and whichever god you may choose). And since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", they should stay out of it.
But that's where the problems and the questions lie. What do you want as a homosexual who wants to marry their partner? Do you want recognition in the eyes of god? Do you want recognition in the eyes of the government? Or do you want to be able to take advantage of some of the benefits that go along with being a "married couple"?
For the first, that's a battle you'll have to take up with the church (and the major religions don't seem to be too relenting on their stance).
For the second, simple recognition in my eyes is unnecessary. If you love someone, be with them for the rest of your lives, what the government says about it should be the least of your concerns (for most, it's more about what their family and friends think about it).
Now, if it's the third that you're looking for - in other words, if you want to be able to claim the tax benefits of a "married couple", or if you want to be able to sign legal or medical papaers as each other's spouse...well then we have to get into some definitions...
Now...the problem as I see it is that people are linking marriage and civil union as meaning the same thing, which they (in my opinion) simply are not. In my eyes, and perhaps this is not the way the law reads it, as I said, a marriage is a union between two people before whatever god it is that you choose to believe in. A civil union is when two people have joined together in the eyes of the government, and are now entitled to those tax benefits, and whatever else married couples get - can you tell I'm still single??
Of course, in the history of our country, we have linked together the ideas of marriage and civil unions...and I think that now more than ever, we need to separate them.
When any two people go down to the town hall to get a "marriage license" it should be called a "civil union" license...or something to that effect...and it should be granted to any 2 people who are willing to make that committment to each other. Will there be those that take advantage of the system somehow...of course, but that's life.
For those who like to use the argument that there is some sanctity in marriage that would be forever corrupted by allowing two men or two women to get married, all I can say is GIVE ME A BREAK!! With a divorce rate that's higher than 50% in this country, domestic abuse at all time highs, and more children born nowadays to parents who either don't care or simply abandon them...I think the "sanctity of marriage" idea has been killed by the heterosexuals of the world.
Admittedly, I have never read the Bible, but I don't think there's anything in there about divorce. But the church found a way around that, so long as everyone agrees to an annulment...side note, I always wondered how an annulment works when the couple had children??
Anyhow...the long and short of it is that the government should only be involved in "allowing" civil unions, to any couple that comes knocking. Leave the marriages to the church.
And now...since I can hardly seem to keep my mouth shut when I should...let me throw out another controversial topic that I don't think the government should have any control over...abortion. That's right...I said it...let the bashing begin...
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jul 6, 2007 8:37:45 GMT -5
I think this and similar issues like abortion serve a single purpose - to constell the voters on the left and on the right, creating two distinct and diametrically opposed voting blocks of liberal and conservatives for the two major political parties to base their support on.
Think about it. If not for issues like these, how else would you be able to tell the two parties apart? All that would be left are the myths of Rich (GOP) vs. Poor (Dem) and tax and spend (Dem) vs. less government (GOP). These are also pretty good party-line "dividers," but they are not emotionally charged enough to fire up the mid-west bible thumping, conservatives or the Big City ultra liberals.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jul 6, 2007 12:19:24 GMT -5
Freehold Resident...you're example is obviously a much more controversial one...in fact I was trying to avoid examples that would stir too much emotion...but since you opened the door... ;D Personally, I don't think the government should have any say, whatsoever, over any type of marriage. In my eyes, "marriage" is something that happens in the church in front of god (whichever church and whichever god you may choose). And since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", they should stay out of it. But that's where the problems and the questions lie. What do you want as a homosexual who wants to marry their partner? Do you want recognition in the eyes of god? Do you want recognition in the eyes of the government? Or do you want to be able to take advantage of some of the benefits that go along with being a "married couple"? For the first, that's a battle you'll have to take up with the church (and the major religions don't seem to be too relenting on their stance). For the second, simple recognition in my eyes is unnecessary. If you love someone, be with them for the rest of your lives, what the government says about it should be the least of your concerns (for most, it's more about what their family and friends think about it). Now, if it's the third that you're looking for - in other words, if you want to be able to claim the tax benefits of a "married couple", or if you want to be able to sign legal or medical papaers as each other's spouse...well then we have to get into some definitions... Now...the problem as I see it is that people are linking marriage and civil union as meaning the same thing, which they (in my opinion) simply are not. In my eyes, and perhaps this is not the way the law reads it, as I said, a marriage is a union between two people before whatever god it is that you choose to believe in. A civil union is when two people have joined together in the eyes of the government, and are now entitled to those tax benefits, and whatever else married couples get - can you tell I'm still single?? Of course, in the history of our country, we have linked together the ideas of marriage and civil unions...and I think that now more than ever, we need to separate them. When any two people go down to the town hall to get a "marriage license" it should be called a "civil union" license...or something to that effect...and it should be granted to any 2 people who are willing to make that committment to each other. Will there be those that take advantage of the system somehow...of course, but that's life. For those who like to use the argument that there is some sanctity in marriage that would be forever corrupted by allowing two men or two women to get married, all I can say is GIVE ME A BREAK!! With a divorce rate that's higher than 50% in this country, domestic abuse at all time highs, and more children born nowadays to parents who either don't care or simply abandon them...I think the "sanctity of marriage" idea has been killed by the heterosexuals of the world. Admittedly, I have never read the Bible, but I don't think there's anything in there about divorce. But the church found a way around that, so long as everyone agrees to an annulment...side note, I always wondered how an annulment works when the couple had children?? Anyhow...the long and short of it is that the government should only be involved in "allowing" civil unions, to any couple that comes knocking. Leave the marriages to the church. And now...since I can hardly seem to keep my mouth shut when I should...let me throw out another controversial topic that I don't think the government should have any control over...abortion. That's right...I said it...let the bashing begin... If government has no role -- which is fine by me -- then you should not have to apply for a license, and you should receive no benefits or recognition. This way -- people can live in any grouping they want -- and explain it anyway they feel they need to. If Government has the right to regulate -- because it gives such benefits and because it believes, that certain groupings, when done correctly, provide the state with the best possible family unit - then folks need to use the democratic process to convince their fellow man why one grouping is deserving, and the other not. The Constitution permits association. Thus, if you want to live with 3 men and two women, and call yourselves a family -- you can. But that is differnet from asking to be married. The great thing about marriage is it is regulated by the state -- by you. If in 50 years people come to believe that gay marriage, plural marriage, or any other grouping is good for the state -- they can enact those arrangements. Expect, however, for those who disagree to fight vigorously against it. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 10, 2007 5:04:23 GMT -5
Does Govt do too much? Well parents, you can rest easy now. The soviet socialist state of new Jersey is at it again. True to form, our lovely state realizes that you are all too stupid and incompetent to raise your own children without massive government intervention. Never mind that NJ has screwed up the schools, that is small potatoes compared to the following. www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070709/NEWS/707090320And for once, the editors of the APP get a clue www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070710/OPINION/707100328/1029And I am sure that when the gov enacts more laws like this, for the children of course, you will all vote for them because they care so much! It works every time. Meanwhile, you will all vote in Karcher and Panter because they bought your vote with a small bit of money for the schools. They will not do a d**n thing to change what really needs to be changed. At that time you will scratch your heads while they come up with more laws such as trans fat bans etc. and the cycle will repeat itself. Let us see if our town government can beat this. It will be a contest between which governing body cares more, based on the amount of frivolous laws they can enact to protect us from ourselves. |
|
bergsteiger
Full Member
War is simple, direct, and ruthless
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by bergsteiger on Jul 10, 2007 7:40:36 GMT -5
The government would not have to regulate out door fireplaces if they didn’t stop me from tossing the neighbor a beating for acting irresponsible with it…  Bike hubs? Now I have heard it all. The first thing I’m going to do if they pass a law outlawing them is to go the Pennsylvania and buy a set.  When are the gays going to stop with this nonsense? Nobody is stopping them from doing what ever it is they do as degenerate as it is.  |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jul 10, 2007 8:50:54 GMT -5
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the rock this morning. Now...now Brian...you are supposed to be in charge of POSITIVE PR for our town....
I somewhat agree with yours and other's takes regarding so-called "frivolous laws" pertaining to the feds and the states, in particular. But, I also think that we often need to take a closer look at why some of these laws are being argued and passed. The bicycle wheel thing? The Trans-fat issue? Better if the federal government addressed these instead of individual states.
As for the Bicycle Wheels? I don't know enough about the bodily injury threat they represent, but the last time I checked, there are bike riding "kids" in each of the 49 other states and bikes are manufactured all over the world, not just in any one state. There is no reason that New Jersey has to single itself out trying to deal with this global issue.
It is also true that there are people with clogged arteries throughout the US and not just in New Jersey. NJ doesn't have to tackle this one alone, either. It is a national health issue.
I don't know about you, but I'd like to see my health insurance costs go down. My cancer related bills have already topped $1.5 million and my deductibles are in the thousands. I'm also sorry to say that you are all paying something towards my recovery - just me - one person. And, I've been paying for other people, who have had cancer, heart disease, etc.
The restaurateurs can make the same french fries without the trans-fats. The bakers can also make "Devil dogs" without them, too. They haven't been motivated to do so on their own. Look at what the Chinese were putting into Pet food, just to make a buck. Didn't care how many dogs and cats they killed. No one was watching them put melamine into the food to fool the public into thinking protein levels were higher than they actually were. Thier profit, pet owner's loss.
Obesity and Diabetes are on the rise. Heart attack is still the number one killer in the US. Many cancers are caused by the unhealthy way some foods are prepared. Why not get the bad fats out of foods and try to reduce health care costs in America? You gotta start somewhere, but more suitably at the Federal level.
Hey folks...let's not be naive. Business people do not always have our best interests at heart and need to be closely guarded. Whether it's people like Ken Lay taking people's pension monies or our own local slumlords who overcrowd our rental properties or the bad employers, who hire illegal immigrants off the books, their greed sells us out every time.
Hopefully, what you think are frivolous ordinances in our own town are appreciated by those whose quality of life is negatively effected by the unchecked actions of others. If Joan Kress, Lee-Lee, Gail Trojan and others are upset by seeing numerous shopping carts left on their streets, every day, I'm happy to have taken 15-20 minutes to give them the cart-free/eyesore-free living that I enjoy on my own street, in the same town.
Some of the greatest rewards we get out of serving on the Council are the many thanks we get for helping people with even the smallest of issues - Right Cheryl?
Marc
|
|
bergsteiger
Full Member
War is simple, direct, and ruthless
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by bergsteiger on Jul 10, 2007 10:40:15 GMT -5
Hey Calliope,
Your making me want to dance around town wearing shorts, a bullet proof vest with a homing pigeon in my pocket, cursing, slurping on my soup, throwing pickles, knitting while heading to the lake with my fishing pole.
Cross-dressing should be punishable by death from hanging.
Brian,
Ignore Marc. He one of those types that wants the government to protect him from french fries
|
|
bergsteiger
Full Member
War is simple, direct, and ruthless
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by bergsteiger on Jul 10, 2007 10:52:19 GMT -5
Marc, did you forget to take your sanity pill today. You want the federal government to protect us from quick locking hubs?
Food imports from China are FDA regulated now and they can’t get the job done. I believe bike hubs would cripple the already broken system.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jul 10, 2007 11:02:33 GMT -5
Indeed. Let's not break the following blue laws in NJ, OK? (www.dumblaws.com) It is illegal to wear a bullet-proof vest while committing a murder. In Newark, It is illegal to sell ice cream after 6pm, unless the customer has a note from his doctor. In Elizabeth, it is forbidden for a woman, on a Sunday, to walk down Broad Street without wearing a petticoat. (does not wearing underwear count? yeah, if you're wondering about me, I'm not telling.) Addendum's ... In Newark, It is illegal to sell ice cream after 6pm, unless the customer has a note from his doctor AND/OR wearing a bullet-proof vest while committing a murder. In Elizabeth, it is forbidden for a woman, on a Sunday, to walk down Broad Street without wearing a petticoat, however men are permitted to walk down Broad Street without wearing a petticoat but only while wearing a bullet-proof vest when committing a murder in NEWARK ONLY! Some clarity, and sanity at last! |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jul 10, 2007 12:26:09 GMT -5
No, it's the heat!
Quick loading hubs? Protection? Fed Government? I don't know anything about these bikes or their wheels, but I do know one thing - NJ is NOT the place to begin legislating against them. On the other hand the feds would be the right place IF and I say IF there is a REAL reason to do so. IF there are real dangers based on statistics or the testimony of experts.
Again, my main point being that NEW JERSEY, should not be playing around with laws that IF NEEDED are better handled on a nationwide basis.
Pet food are NOT regulated by the FDA and probably should be.
By the way, I am reading the Robin Cook novel, "Toxin." Great story line that does a credible job revealing the problems with both, the Managed Care system and the FDA, as it relates to faulty inspections in the cattle slaughter and meat packaging industries. Yes, it is fiction, but it seems to mirror reality pretty well. It was written in 1999, and 8 years later it still is relevant - maybe even moreso.
As for the broken system? If the federal government ever went public and sold shares of stock, they'd have to declare bankruptcy. We shouldn't avoid asking the government to do things, just because we believe they are poor at doing them. Instead, we should insist they improve their results by hiring, firing and managing better - just like any other operational body.
You see, Berg. Where I am coming from is that I don't trust the government, but I trust many business people even less. At least with the government I can do something about it. Unethical businesspeople...that's something entirely different.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Jul 10, 2007 12:49:21 GMT -5
But therein lies the caveat--
The Government (mostly Federal) IS run by businessmen. Our federal government is run by corporations, not "We the people," any longer.
FR
|
|
bergsteiger
Full Member
War is simple, direct, and ruthless
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by bergsteiger on Jul 10, 2007 12:55:48 GMT -5
Marc,
Thanks for clearing up that hub thing. I was just rattling your cage, gotya. Yes your right about the pet food but that is not the only food we get from China and other food is regulated but not checked and I’m willing to bet the same thing is going on with that. Then there is the toothpaste thing and live stock food and so on we need to keep are eyes on the Chinese and less on the trans fat.
It seams like our politicians would rather meddle in the small easy stuff then tackle the real problems. We don’t have too much government they just focus on the wrong stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Jul 10, 2007 13:14:55 GMT -5
Bergsteiger said:
Thanks for clearing up that hub thing. I was just rattling your cage, gotya. Yes your right about the pet food but that is not the only food we get from China and other food is regulated but not checked and I’m willing to bet the same thing is going on with that. Then there is the toothpaste thing and live stock food and so on we need to keep are eyes on the Chinese and less on the trans fat.
It seams like our politicians would rather meddle in the small easy stuff then tackle the real problems. We don’t have too much government they just focus on the wrong stuff.
Run-on sentences, much? Semicolons?? Commas? Periods?? Ever hear of them? Seams? Seams of our pants?? Wow, for someone who calls other people degenerates..... FR |
|
bergsteiger
Full Member
War is simple, direct, and ruthless
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by bergsteiger on Jul 10, 2007 13:34:37 GMT -5
Bergsteiger said:
Thanks for clearing up that hub thing. I was just rattling your cage, gotya. Yes your right about the pet food but that is not the only food we get from China and other food is regulated but not checked and I’m willing to bet the same thing is going on with that. Then there is the toothpaste thing and live stock food and so on we need to keep are eyes on the Chinese and less on the trans fat.
It seams like our politicians would rather meddle in the small easy stuff then tackle the real problems. We don’t have too much government they just focus on the wrong stuff.
Run-on sentences, much? Semicolons?? Commas? Periods?? Ever hear of them? Seams? Seams of our pants?? Wow, for someone who calls other people degenerates..... FR I’m no Calliope for sure. Thanks for pointing out bad grammar. I have to work on it. You like those low blows, huh |
|
