http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&hp You know what, I wish we could divide communities into those that want less gov't and those that are fine with the system as it is. THen the EPA and FDA would only have to regulate in the ccommunities that were concerned about safety, and the otehrs would have gov't out of their lives. Let's those who want less gov't reap the rewards of less gov't. But less not cost the rest of us. Maybe they can pay lower taxes in exchange for removing all safety and protections for them and their families. They can have less and pay less.
Typical liberal rhetoric. They have trouble distinguishing between blind government control, less government and no government. There is a difference between believing the government should protect its people from enemies, diseases and other such things that hurts its people directly vs propping up failed businesses and directly interfering with businesses and individual rights.
I can appreciate this in principal, but given the significant conservative opposition to Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act (which also has included many efforts to remove the teeth from those laws in the years since), I'm not sure whether your distinction is actually expressed functionally and in practice in the real world.
Otto, repped. Exactly. We have to wield the fact stick with more and more precision and intensity. The absurd pinatas before us must not make us sloppy.
Prescient. From this morning's NY Times-- "Toxic Waters: Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost to Health "
^^^ Reading comprehension failure, there. That's what I get for going from the bottom up, and not clicking on the initial link.
Yeah, except I'm a moderate who actually leans to the right. Just label anyone who disagrees with you a liberal. You're just another robot.
Call me whatever you like. If you agree with liberal sediment, then so be it. I don't think i've met anyone who believes we should do away with FDA, FCC, FAA and many more of the 3 letter acronyms. You're basically saying those who believe in less government are for complete anarchy. You might be ok with your current government, but there are many of us that are tired of the self interest, special interest groups and corruption that goes on in our government. Sure, it might go on forever, but I'm not going to say that is acceptable.
Of course I am tired of lobbyists, corporate interests, and special interests groups controling and influencing policy. But you guys act like that started with Obama, when it's been going on for a very long time. Where were you guys the last 8 years? Why just now? Because it's not about that. It's not about less gov't, it's just about taking out Obama. That's what disgusts me.
So you were happy with the last 8 years? Those policies should continue? I think the bailout opened a lot of people's eyes to what is actually going on between DC and Wall Street. Ironic that most of the democrats who hate bug business voted for the bailouts and most of the republicans didn't. (yes I realize Bush was president then)
Liberal sediment? Are you calling me dirt? I'm pretty sure that the party platform of libertarians argues for exactly that, the abolition of most of government, including those agencies that are supposed to protect us (FDA, SEC, etc.) <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1G6gZuOFsaw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1G6gZuOFsaw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> Ron Paul, the current libertarian standard-bearer, here argues for cutting the Department of Education and Agriculture. Agriculture, as Ed Schultz here notes (god he's awful), is in some ways important to food safety. (Reagan used to argue for losing Education too. Libertarian sentiment often overlaps with the fiscal conservative wing of the Republican party.) But that's not all. Many true blue libertarians want to lose most government agencies, arguing that their elimination would remove impediments to the free market. Bye bye to regulatory agencies; hello unrestricted capitalism. Salon: "Ron Paul is blowing up real good" Wikipedia's Ron Paul policy page: For an example of libertarian thought, here's a piece by John Stossel arguing for the effective elimination of the Food & Drug Agency, the agency which also regulates the food industry, and the safety of prescribed medications. Though he is a crazy person arguing for crazy policies, he does have a remarkable voice which perfectly conveys passive aggression. This explains his long career at ABC News, and now the Fox Business Channel. Jewish World Review: Dismantle the FDA?:
This is the point exactly. All the shenanigans going on in Washington is bringing people who normally vote on party lines out of the woodwork. Bush had a low popularity opinion for a reason. Obama, touting change, is bring the same nonsense as Bush. There we're plenty protesting Bush, but now that Obama is proving no different, as promised, is facing more opposition as ever.
You're battling two different arguments. One argument is less government, whether is federal, government, or local. The other is the argument on the 10th amendment...which is the constitution does not give authority to the federal government to have such programs (im not trying to debate that subject, just pointing out the difference). Libertarians feel drugs should be legal, based on personal freedoms while conservatives (who are about less government) feel it should be outlawed. This is one of the primary reasons why i've backed away from typical conservative thinking. The problem with America is that most people are brainwashed into falling into their party lines.
Dude, this is so bizarre. Because you bemoan special interests yet you carry their banner. It's special interests that is trying to kill health care reform. Do you understand that? that it's the insurance companies and AMA and such that is pushing for these protests and lobbying republicans to oppose the public option? because you are forgetting that Obama IS TRYING TO CHANGE the system. The reality is, that Americans don't care enough. You need to educated yourself on what is actually going on before you make the statements you are, because you are contradicting yourself.
Huh? Special interest groups on both sides are working the system. I suppose that makes everyone hypocritical. Yes, I want health care reform. But I do not want it in any form of a public option. Obama is not changing anything except to give the government more control in our life.
How does providing health care to those who don't have it mean gov't control of your life? I hate to tell this to you, but right now your medical decisions are influenced by insurance companies. The tests you take, the procedures you have - all of it is influenced by the insurance plan and your doctor. Your doctor has a lot of restraints in terms of what they can or can not do. You don't know that, do you? The public option isn't going to replace your insurance. It's not more gov't in your life. It anything, it will put pressure on insurance companies to give you better care and offer more choice. Are you opposed to more choice and competition? Probably what's goign to happen is that it will be a co-op instead of a public option...just so that the wing-nuts can't claim it's another gov't program.
It is not so much what is being proposed, but what it will turn into. We can argue this into the dead of the night, but it will turn into an expensive and massive mess like all the other major programs. Don't tout that the program will pay for itself. The same is said about SS, but yet it barely affords to keep food on the table for the poor. A huge problem with the current proposed solution is that its being modeled after a system that is already a failure.