The Nanny State - We'll tell you what you can drink

[Triton]

Wrong.

Helmet laws protect ME from idiots who fail to buy health insurance and then get hurt and go to the emergency room on "my dime."

Helmet laws protect ME from idiots who leave their small brains on the pavement and end up drooling in a nursing home where "my dime" pays for their lifetime care.

Ironically you can't see that the solution to spending your dime is not MORE government intrusion it is LESS. Why are you paying for these people?

[BG42EDGE]

Ironically you can't see that the solution to spending your dime is not MORE government intrusion it is LESS. Why are you paying for these people?

Because that's what civilized people do......they share their good fortune and care for the less fortunate.

[BG42EDGE]

Not quite, "your dime" will have to be used to fund the legal system, and law enforcement to follow you and to make sure you are complying with all the rules as well as everyone else.
Perhaps "that dime" would be better spent on preventing hard criminal intents such as those breaking into private property or violent crime, than to enforce helmet laws or from preventing me from hurting myself. Just my two cents.

Both expenses are important and necessary. No need to choose one or the other.

[Triton]

Because that's what civilized people do......they share their good fortune and care for the less fortunate.

And you can only share your good fortune and care for the less fortunate if the government forces you to? Perhaps you aren't that civilized after all.

That aside, there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the right to force you to share your good fortune and care for the less fortune. However, our government has taken it upon itself to force you to contribute your dimes. Which causes a new problem, that is now that you have money involved you want to control other people's lives. Ever more government is the only solution you have... and it hasn't worked yet.

[BG42EDGE]

And you can only share your good fortune and care for the less fortunate if the government forces you to? Perhaps you aren't that civilized after all.

Some of us are.

That aside, there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the right to force you to share your good fortune and care for the less fortune.

Again, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says or does not say.

Like the Bible, it's an obsolete document and irrelevant to contemporary problems. It was written by tax-evading, slave-owning Rulers over two hundred years ago and will always be interpreted to fit the needs of the current Rulers.

[Hog Feet]

Some of us are.



Again, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says or does not say.

Like the Bible, it's an obsolete document and irrelevant to contemporary problems. It was written by tax-evading, slave-owning Rulers over two hundred years ago and will always be interpreted to fit the needs of the current Rulers.

Specifically, which parts of the COTUS do you consider obsolete and irrelevant?

[BG42EDGE]

In the future, the Nanny will force you to wear these:

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-diet-gla...114410996.html

Goggles that trick the wearer into thinking the plain snack in their hand is a chocolate cookie, or make biscuits appear larger have been unveiled in Japan, offering hope to weak-willed dieters everywhere.

[timcsaw]

Specifically, which parts of the COTUS do you consider obsolete and irrelevant?

An excellent question... I'd like to know his answer to this as well...

[Bufford]

Both expenses are important and necessary. No need to choose one or the other.

So what your saying is that as individuals we cannot be trusted to properly take care and manage our own affairs without governement controls to step in to ensure that we are indeed taking proper care of ourselves? You are suggesting that government can manage our lives for us and that we would live a better life by having the government take care of us through the use of restrictions and by forcing us to pay the government to restrict, control, and regulate our lives. How does restricting freedom for government control/regulations/enforcement over our lives make life better?

[BG42EDGE]

Specifically, which parts of the COTUS do you consider obsolete and irrelevant?

The whole thing.....courts should rule by common sense, not a document written by rich, tax-evading, slave-owning Rulers over two hundred years ago.

As I said, it will always be "interpreted" to fit the needs of the current Rulers and to keep the bootheel of the rich on the neck of the poor.

It's useless to the common man of today's America.

Has the COTUS done anything to prevent the current slow slide into Fascism?

Did it impact the "Citizens United" decision that now allows corporations to buy elections?

No.

It's irrelevant.

[BG42EDGE]

So what your saying is that as individuals we cannot be trusted to properly take care and manage our own affairs without governement controls to step in to ensure that we are indeed taking proper care of ourselves?

Yes.......not all of us, but many of us.

[timcsaw]

The whole thing.....courts should rule by common sense, not a document written by rich, tax-evading, slave-owning Rulers over two hundred years ago.

As I said, it will always be "interpreted" to fit the needs of the current Rulers and to keep the bootheel of the rich on the neck of the poor.

It's useless to the common man of today's America.

Has the COTUS done anything to prevent the current slow slide into Fascism?

Did it impact the "Citizens United" decision that now allows corporations to buy elections?

No.

It's irrelevant.

The Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech is "obsolete", "irrelevant", and "useless"?

Wow.

[BG42EDGE]

The Rulers allow free speech because it looks good.

It gives the illusion of democracy.

If you fall for that......I have some swamp land in Florida.......

Answer the question about "Citizens United."

[Hog Feet]

......I have some swamp land in Florida.......

Please limit these kinds of posts to the For Sale Forum

[timcsaw]

The Rulers allow free speech because it looks good.

It gives the illusion of democracy.

If you fall for that......I have some swamp land in Florida.......

Answer the question about "Citizens United."

So are you opposed to free speech then?

No problem... I've read the Citizens United SCOTUS decision. No where within it does it state in writing a permit for unions or "corporations to buy elections". Your opinion of what it says, and what it actually says are quite different... If you don't mind, I'll take what it ACTUALLY says over what you "think" it says.

[Triton]

Some of us are.

Yet you say you need the government to force you to take care of the less fortunate. Why is that?

Again, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says or does not say.

Like the Bible, it's an obsolete document and irrelevant to contemporary problems. It was written by tax-evading, slave-owning Rulers over two hundred years ago and will always be interpreted to fit the needs of the current Rulers.

I see so once again you are advocating for mob rule.

[Triton]

Yes.......not all of us, but many of us.

Which ones? I assume that you are qualified to take care of yourself?

[Triton]

The whole thing.....courts should rule by common sense, not a document written by rich, tax-evading, slave-owning Rulers over two hundred years ago.

Whose common sense? Mine?

[HJK]

The whole thing.....courts should rule by common sense, not a document written by rich, tax-evading, slave-owning Rulers over two hundred years ago.

As I said, it will always be "interpreted" to fit the needs of the current Rulers and to keep the bootheel of the rich on the neck of the poor.

It's useless to the common man of today's America.

Has the COTUS done anything to prevent the current slow slide into Fascism?

Did it impact the "Citizens United" decision that now allows corporations to buy elections?

No.

It's irrelevant.

There is an argument in there somewhere, but not the way it is presented.
The Courts cannot rule by "common sense". That is sometimes called "Solomonic Justice" or the "length of the Chancellor's left foot" and is an utterly untenable and discredited notion that is essentially a denial of the rule of law, stare decisis ( precedent) and any jurisprudence governed by principle rather the whim. But I suspect BG42Edge knows this.

That the Consitution is a reflection of the socio-economic interests of the Founders and of those that can access the legal system, and those that apply and interpret the Constitution is obviously true, but that does not in any way prove that the Constitution or the Courts are "useless to the common man".
Picking one decision that you disagree with ("Citizens United") and pontificating that the USSC has never done a good thing for anybody but the "Rulers" is, to be charitable, a wild exaggeration and hyperbole, un;ess you discredit hundreds of decisions. But again, I suspect BG42Edge knows this too and is being deliberately provocative and perhaps to the point of trolling.

Flesh out the arguments and try being less provocative for the sake of being provocative. You are generating much more heat than light and I won't let it continue indefinitely.

[BG42EDGE]

Picking one decision that you disagree with ("Citizens United") and pontificating that the USSC has never done a good thing for anybody but the "Rulers" is, to be charitable, a wild exaggeration and hyperbole...

I didn't say that. The Rulers allow some "good" things to happen for others when it's convenient for them. Did you read what I said about "Free" speech?

That's not hyperbole, that's just the way it is.

And people who can't handle the truth always fall back on "trolling."

That's just the way it is too.