Nope, strong in the context that the country has a strong economy, strong military, strong resource management etc.......Strong does not mean the strength to control my retirement, my pay, my education, my health.CameronPoe wrote:
What is 'strong government'? Is it government that can override the wishes of significant minorities of individuals in order to get things done? That is, it is 'strong' in the sense that 'weak' means that individuals have too much control over affairs?lowing wrote:
Big govt. does go against my principals, a strong govt. does not.CameronPoe wrote:
Odd. I would have thought big government goes against your principles.
You can still have a strong govt. without micro-managing its citizens affairs for them.
Lowing seems to take everything anyone says and exaggerate it to the nth degree. If you say 'I gave €5 to a Cancer charity' he'll start arguing with you about the wrongs of communism. If you say 'There are a couple of muslims in my workplace.' he'll start arguing about how Islamic fundamentalism is the scourge of the modern world.
Well I'm afraid you pay for the military lowing. Hate to break it to you. You pay quite a pretty penny too.lowing wrote:
Nope, strong in the context that the country has a strong economy, strong military, strong resource management etc.......Strong does not mean the strength to control my retirement, my pay, my education, my health.
Lowing, I don't know what your problem is. I said that states could find a way to deal with more responsibility allowing the federal government to downsize. That is an IDEA. You then told me that this won't work, and enumerated some 'reasons'.lowing wrote:
Ummmmm stick to the sentence you are challenging before trying a reversal.
I said the idea of our govt. is perfect. I did not say it was so in practice. Acknowledge that, then you can move on
Sounds like Lowing doesn't like the taste of his own medicine.
So, who exactly will individual state turn to when border disputes arise? Who will Florida turn to if Georgia decides to start dumping into the Chatahoochie just over the border from Florida, after corruption and greed take over?Kmarion wrote:
It's already that way lowing. California has a higher standard than it's neighboring states. What exactly are you suggesting the government do? Tell each state how to handle it's enviroment? I got news for you. It's usually the states resisting the federal government when it comes to the environment. Florida doesn't want offshore drilling. Alaska doesn't want ANWR exploited.. so they fight it. States handle interstate commerce very well also.lowing wrote:
What exactly would you do if a state decides environmental concerns are not high on its priority list, while its neighboring states hold it in high regard.I'd say creating legislation around one individual woman is micro managing. I'd say deciding whether or not to remove a feeding tube is very personal as well.I am against my govt. micro managing my personal affairs, but that is not what I am addressing here. All citizens being held to the same standard and all states being held to up hold them is my concern.
I agree the federal govt. should not have gotten involved in Terry Shivo, or any case like it. THis is micro managing
..........show me where I have done this, or, are you exaggerating a bit?CameronPoe wrote:
Lowing seems to take everything anyone says and exaggerate it to the nth degree. If you say 'I gave €5 to a Cancer charity' he'll start arguing with you about the wrongs of communism. If you say 'There are a couple of muslims in my workplace.' he'll start arguing about how Islamic fundamentalism is the scourge of the modern world.
Don't quote me unless you are going to address what I have said.CameronPoe wrote:
Well I'm afraid you pay for the military lowing. Hate to break it to you. You pay quite a pretty penny too.lowing wrote:
Nope, strong in the context that the country has a strong economy, strong military, strong resource management etc.......Strong does not mean the strength to control my retirement, my pay, my education, my health.
This all depends on the state of the country. If we remain a union of 50 states with a weak federal government, we could still maintain things like the Department of Justice. We could limit the federal government down to a "moderator & protector" role.lowing wrote:
So, who exactly will individual state turn to when border disputes arise? Who will Florida turn to if Georgia decides to start dumping into the Chatahoochie just over the border from Florida, after corruption and greed take over?Kmarion wrote:
It's already that way lowing. California has a higher standard than it's neighboring states. What exactly are you suggesting the government do? Tell each state how to handle it's enviroment? I got news for you. It's usually the states resisting the federal government when it comes to the environment. Florida doesn't want offshore drilling. Alaska doesn't want ANWR exploited.. so they fight it. States handle interstate commerce very well also.lowing wrote:
What exactly would you do if a state decides environmental concerns are not high on its priority list, while its neighboring states hold it in high regard.I'd say creating legislation around one individual woman is micro managing. I'd say deciding whether or not to remove a feeding tube is very personal as well.I am against my govt. micro managing my personal affairs, but that is not what I am addressing here. All citizens being held to the same standard and all states being held to up hold them is my concern.
I agree the federal govt. should not have gotten involved in Terry Shivo, or any case like it. THis is micro managing
If we truly split into multiple countries, then it could be settled in ways that resemble how the EU works with disputes.
Acknowledge what I said in the context of the sentence, then you can move on.SenorToenails wrote:
Lowing, I don't know what your problem is. I said that states could find a way to deal with more responsibility allowing the federal government to downsize. That is an IDEA. You then told me that this won't work, and enumerated some 'reasons'.lowing wrote:
Ummmmm stick to the sentence you are challenging before trying a reversal.
I said the idea of our govt. is perfect. I did not say it was so in practice. Acknowledge that, then you can move on
Sounds like Lowing doesn't like the taste of his own medicine.
More responsibility huh? Ya mean like Louisianna handling New Orleans on its own? I am all for it!! How about California with all its natural disasters? Can't wait until SF falls into the bay with no central govt. available to aid.
The State of Georgia already prosecutes anyone illegally dumping in the Chattahoochee. I have no reason to think this would change. Corruption and forced environmental destruction usually comes north of GA... around the DC area.lowing wrote:
So, who exactly will individual state turn to when border disputes arise? Who will Florida turn to if Georgia decides to start dumping into the Chatahoochie just over the border from Florida, after corruption and greed take over?Kmarion wrote:
It's already that way lowing. California has a higher standard than it's neighboring states. What exactly are you suggesting the government do? Tell each state how to handle it's enviroment? I got news for you. It's usually the states resisting the federal government when it comes to the environment. Florida doesn't want offshore drilling. Alaska doesn't want ANWR exploited.. so they fight it. States handle interstate commerce very well also.lowing wrote:
What exactly would you do if a state decides environmental concerns are not high on its priority list, while its neighboring states hold it in high regard.I'd say creating legislation around one individual woman is micro managing. I'd say deciding whether or not to remove a feeding tube is very personal as well.I am against my govt. micro managing my personal affairs, but that is not what I am addressing here. All citizens being held to the same standard and all states being held to up hold them is my concern.
I agree the federal govt. should not have gotten involved in Terry Shivo, or any case like it. THis is micro managing
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well taking your statement at face value you want to live in a country that follows Ron Paul's fiscal and governmental principles. Where do you want education to come from, pray tell. In this ideal world you envisage where nothing anomalous ever occurs and free markets work perfectly (we won't talk about what happened in Russia) you want a country whose military functions without funding ('strong does not mean the strength to control ... my pay'. It seems strange.lowing wrote:
Don't quote me unless you are going to address what I have said.CameronPoe wrote:
Well I'm afraid you pay for the military lowing. Hate to break it to you. You pay quite a pretty penny too.lowing wrote:
Nope, strong in the context that the country has a strong economy, strong military, strong resource management etc.......Strong does not mean the strength to control my retirement, my pay, my education, my health.
If you have a weak central govt. then there will be nothing of it to challenge issues.Turquoise wrote:
This all depends on the state of the country. If we remain a union of 50 states with a weak federal government, we could still maintain things like the Department of Justice. We could limit the federal government down to a "moderator & protector" role.lowing wrote:
So, who exactly will individual state turn to when border disputes arise? Who will Florida turn to if Georgia decides to start dumping into the Chatahoochie just over the border from Florida, after corruption and greed take over?Kmarion wrote:
It's already that way lowing. California has a higher standard than it's neighboring states. What exactly are you suggesting the government do? Tell each state how to handle it's enviroment? I got news for you. It's usually the states resisting the federal government when it comes to the environment. Florida doesn't want offshore drilling. Alaska doesn't want ANWR exploited.. so they fight it. States handle interstate commerce very well also.lowing wrote:
What exactly would you do if a state decides environmental concerns are not high on its priority list, while its neighboring states hold it in high regard.
I'd say creating legislation around one individual woman is micro managing. I'd say deciding whether or not to remove a feeding tube is very personal as well.
I agree the federal govt. should not have gotten involved in Terry Shivo, or any case like it. THis is micro managing
If we truly split into multiple countries, then it could be settled in ways that resemble how the EU works with disputes.
By resembling ways the Eurotrash solves problems, like starting WW1 and WW2?
I'm a strong advocate of privatizing emergency services and telling states that they have to go it alone when it comes to natural disasters.lowing wrote:
Acknowledge what I said in the context of the sentence, then you can move on.SenorToenails wrote:
Lowing, I don't know what your problem is. I said that states could find a way to deal with more responsibility allowing the federal government to downsize. That is an IDEA. You then told me that this won't work, and enumerated some 'reasons'.lowing wrote:
Ummmmm stick to the sentence you are challenging before trying a reversal.
I said the idea of our govt. is perfect. I did not say it was so in practice. Acknowledge that, then you can move on
Sounds like Lowing doesn't like the taste of his own medicine.
More responsibility huh? Ya mean like Louisianna handling New Orleans on its own? I am all for it!! How about California with all its natural disasters? Can't wait until SF falls into the bay with no central govt. available to aid.
I sure as hell don't want to continue funding reconstruction efforts in areas known to be vulnerable. It's just a waste of money building a home in an area that periodically floods or is hit by hurricanes. At least in California, some areas have designed earthquake resistant buildings. In New Orleans, they're rebuilding levees that they already know will fail against another Katrina. It's ridiculous, but it happens because the federal government just throws money at it.
"Lets also add into the mix of 50 seperate economies"lowing wrote:
..........show me where I have done this, or, are you exaggerating a bit?CameronPoe wrote:
Lowing seems to take everything anyone says and exaggerate it to the nth degree. If you say 'I gave €5 to a Cancer charity' he'll start arguing with you about the wrongs of communism. If you say 'There are a couple of muslims in my workplace.' he'll start arguing about how Islamic fundamentalism is the scourge of the modern world.
Nobody suggested anything of the sort.
It was an example, it was an example it was an example. It could be any state with any issue that directly affects other states.Kmarion wrote:
The State of Georgia already prosecutes anyone illegally dumping in the Chattahoochee. I have no reason to think this would change. Corruption and forced environmental destruction usually comes north of GA... around the DC area.lowing wrote:
So, who exactly will individual state turn to when border disputes arise? Who will Florida turn to if Georgia decides to start dumping into the Chatahoochie just over the border from Florida, after corruption and greed take over?Kmarion wrote:
It's already that way lowing. California has a higher standard than it's neighboring states. What exactly are you suggesting the government do? Tell each state how to handle it's enviroment? I got news for you. It's usually the states resisting the federal government when it comes to the environment. Florida doesn't want offshore drilling. Alaska doesn't want ANWR exploited.. so they fight it. States handle interstate commerce very well also.lowing wrote:
What exactly would you do if a state decides environmental concerns are not high on its priority list, while its neighboring states hold it in high regard.
I'd say creating legislation around one individual woman is micro managing. I'd say deciding whether or not to remove a feeding tube is very personal as well.
I agree the federal govt. should not have gotten involved in Terry Shivo, or any case like it. THis is micro managing
First, a weak central government doesn't mean it's incapable of serving justice. I use the term "weak" in comparison to the size of our strong but bloated government. Maybe I should instead use the term "small." You can have a small but strong government.lowing wrote:
If you have a weak central govt. then there will be nothing of it to challenge issues.
By resembling ways the Eurotrash solves problems, like starting WW1 and WW2?
Second, the EU is actually doing quite well. Examine, for example, the value of the Euro versus our dollar.
we agree thenTurquoise wrote:
I'm a strong advocate of privatizing emergency services and telling states that they have to go it alone when it comes to natural disasters.lowing wrote:
Acknowledge what I said in the context of the sentence, then you can move on.SenorToenails wrote:
Lowing, I don't know what your problem is. I said that states could find a way to deal with more responsibility allowing the federal government to downsize. That is an IDEA. You then told me that this won't work, and enumerated some 'reasons'.
Sounds like Lowing doesn't like the taste of his own medicine.
More responsibility huh? Ya mean like Louisianna handling New Orleans on its own? I am all for it!! How about California with all its natural disasters? Can't wait until SF falls into the bay with no central govt. available to aid.
I sure as hell don't want to continue funding reconstruction efforts in areas known to be vulnerable. It's just a waste of money building a home in an area that periodically floods or is hit by hurricanes. At least in California, some areas have designed earthquake resistant buildings. In New Orleans, they're rebuilding levees that they already know will fail against another Katrina. It's ridiculous, but it happens because the federal government just throws money at it.
Hmmm.lowing wrote:
By resembling ways the Eurotrash solves problems, like starting WW1 and WW2?
Higher average living standards.
Lower poverty.
Stronger currency.
The ability to take poorer nations under our wing and incorporate them into the EU and make them prosper.
62 years without a major war and counting.
Hmmm.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-12 19:12:53)
What? I need to acknowledge that the idea of our government is perfect? I won't. Our government is only as perfect as those who are part of it.lowing wrote:
Acknowledge what I said in the context of the sentence, then you can move on.
More responsibility huh? Ya mean like Louisianna handling New Orleans on its own? I am all for it!! How about California with all its natural disasters? Can't wait until SF falls into the bay with no central govt. available to aid.
All you need to realize that no one here is suggesting a transfer of government back to the Articles of Confederation. If you think that, then well, you need to reread a lot of the posts here.Sir Winston Churchill wrote:
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
There needs to be a central government, but I feel that it should be smaller and have less reach, especially when it comes to matters of the states. Interstate conflicts exist, and always will. And guess what? States work them out!
Oh look-- states can reach agreements on everything you claim they can't.Interstate Compacts wrote:
The purpose of interstate compacts ranges from implementing common laws to exchanging information about similar problems. They apply to everything from conservation and resource management to civil defense, emergency management, law enforcement, transportation, and taxes. Other compact subjects include education, energy, mental health, workers compensation and low-level radioactive waste.
Th debate is whether 50 individual govts should be stronger than 1 centralize govt. If this is allowed there is no way that centralized govt. will have any clout. What exactly will you do with a rogue state? Since there will be no central govt. to effectively answer to. I guess all of the other states can go to war with it huh. VERY European.Turquoise wrote:
First, a weak central government doesn't mean it's incapable of serving justice. I use the term "weak" in comparison to the size of our strong but bloated government. Maybe I should instead use the term "small." You can have a small but strong government.lowing wrote:
If you have a weak central govt. then there will be nothing of it to challenge issues.
By resembling ways the Eurotrash solves problems, like starting WW1 and WW2?
Second, the EU is actually doing quite well. Examine, for example, the value of the Euro versus our dollar.
Get back with me when Europe can go 100 years without going to war against itself.
You mean like being able to go 142 years without going to war against itself?lowing wrote:
Th debate is whether 50 individual govts should be stronger than 1 centralize govt. If this is allowed there is no way that centralized govt. will have any clout. What exactly will you do with a rogue state? Since there will be no central govt. to effectively answer to. I guess all of the other states can go to war with it huh. VERY European.
Get back with me when Europe can go 100 years without going to war against itself.
I find it fascinating watching someone who constantly advocates concentrating freedoms in the hands of the individual arguing the case for big corrupt inefficient government.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-12 19:19:35)
Way more efficient as well. This has to do with voters paying attention to issues that effect them directly. It's just the nature of average people.SenorToenails wrote:
Oh look-- states can reach agreements on everything you claim they can't.Interstate Compacts wrote:
The purpose of interstate compacts ranges from implementing common laws to exchanging information about similar problems. They apply to everything from conservation and resource management to civil defense, emergency management, law enforcement, transportation, and taxes. Other compact subjects include education, energy, mental health, workers compensation and low-level radioactive waste.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The idea OF our govt. is perfect IS perfectin the sense that the power belongs to the people, that govt. is not stronger than the people who appoint representitives. The notion that it is the peoples responsibility and have the power NOT to let govt. run away with its appointed charges. A govt of the people by the people for the people IS a perfect govt.SenorToenails wrote:
What? I need to acknowledge that the idea of our government is perfect? I won't. Our government is only as perfect as those who are part of it.lowing wrote:
Acknowledge what I said in the context of the sentence, then you can move on.
More responsibility huh? Ya mean like Louisianna handling New Orleans on its own? I am all for it!! How about California with all its natural disasters? Can't wait until SF falls into the bay with no central govt. available to aid.All you need to realize that no one here is suggesting a transfer of government back to the Articles of Confederation. If you think that, then well, you need to reread a lot of the posts here.Sir Winston Churchill wrote:
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
There needs to be a central government, but I feel that it should be smaller and have less reach, especially when it comes to matters of the states. Interstate conflicts exist, and always will. And guess what? States work them out!Oh look-- states can reach agreements on everything you claim they can't.Interstate Compacts wrote:
The purpose of interstate compacts ranges from implementing common laws to exchanging information about similar problems. They apply to everything from conservation and resource management to civil defense, emergency management, law enforcement, transportation, and taxes. Other compact subjects include education, energy, mental health, workers compensation and low-level radioactive waste.
In practice however, this does not ring true.
Um... Commie mentioned a vague idea of splitting the country up. He didn't say how many ways. I was suggesting 6 pieces. That would be weaker than our current situation, but still strong enough to handle things.lowing wrote:
Th debate is whether 50 individual govts should be stronger than 1 centralize govt. If this is allowed there is no way that centralized govt. will have any clout. What exactly will you do with a rogue state? Since there will be no central govt. to effectively answer to. I guess all of the other states can go to war with it huh. VERY European.Turquoise wrote:
First, a weak central government doesn't mean it's incapable of serving justice. I use the term "weak" in comparison to the size of our strong but bloated government. Maybe I should instead use the term "small." You can have a small but strong government.lowing wrote:
If you have a weak central govt. then there will be nothing of it to challenge issues.
By resembling ways the Eurotrash solves problems, like starting WW1 and WW2?
Second, the EU is actually doing quite well. Examine, for example, the value of the Euro versus our dollar.
Get back with me when Europe can go 100 years without going to war against itself.
not bad for a 230 year nation, huh?CameronPoe wrote:
You mean like being able to go 142 years without going to war against itself?lowing wrote:
Th debate is whether 50 individual govts should be stronger than 1 centralize govt. If this is allowed there is no way that centralized govt. will have any clout. What exactly will you do with a rogue state? Since there will be no central govt. to effectively answer to. I guess all of the other states can go to war with it huh. VERY European.
Get back with me when Europe can go 100 years without going to war against itself.