Last edited by danarhea; 05-26-11 at 11:37 PM.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
That is because no studies have really been done all that well on it. I however have no reason to believe that poisons are ok in low doses over a long period of time. It sounds illogical to me.These questions about water are raised, but no study with decent methodology proves true harm. Most of the places these questions are coming from are tinfoil hat-wearers who believe it's a government mind control plot.
That is more a instrument of how it is now though. There is no reason to believe that I can see that the infrastructure you speak of is a essential part of society in order to make society work. Saying it as so with no supporting evidence like you did is not very convincing.Private industry existing atop goverment infrastructure is the universal rule. It's not badly planned - it's necessary in a fast-paced, highly competitive, highly communicative society. Every company's land, plumbing, communication infrustrcture, roads they use for transport, etc, is all built on a government platform. They can't exist in a meaningful capacity without it because fractured industry and landscape does not work in a developed country. It's not competitive.
Lets ignore that you are obviously changed the topic and you clearly do not know my stance but you decree that you in fact do, which is clearly and loudly blatantly false and focus only on your lack of understanding of the world in which we live. You think that deregulation in which I call for has actually happened, and that my friend is false so comparing it to history is a falsity. Second, in all countries that have huge populations of poor they do not have the conditions in which I call for, in the system that I wish to be in place. Their cultures are weak, their understanding of freedom is limited, and their will is limited but all of this can be fixed, but in order to really get there they have to move more to a free market system with economic freedom in place. All of them are not good comparisons to what I decree.There is no country that I am aware of that is largely de-regulated where poverty levels are low. Please find one and correct me if I am wrong. Qualifications for this include private infrastructure and governance. You can claim it all you want, but history books and the world economy disagree. All evidence says that what happens is that a tiny percentage get rich, and the vast majority become destitutely poor.
Control pricing they do not have. If they price too high the government will cry, that is not freedom as it should be. Its control, pure and simple. As for the free market, a market in which the government is involved is not free, but it might still be a market. A free market driven solution wouldn't include the government in the solution, it wouldn't allow a failed model to be exist in the name of some sort of game it offers. The model in which you seek is a net lose, not only in price, but in freedom and in fair competitive forces. The gains it gives should be offered in a reasonable, real world solution that market can manage, not a solution in which needs help to exist and makes a special exception to a field because of gains. This just holds up what you wish and holds down everyone else. Not freedom at all, not fair at all, and I dare say not good for the country.There is balance in all things. Communications companies actually have tons of freedom to innovate and add features and control pricing since they don't have the worry about the ground work. There is nothing wrong with the groundwork. It goes everywhere. So they get to cover as much as of that as they desire to aim for, in whatever way they aim to. The free market decides who is best.
The rate of poverty has nothing to do with regulations and everything like I said to do with wealth. That comes from the market. When the wealth is high and the market is healthy poverty is lower.And here's where we get to the overarching point. When the basics, the questions of survival, are taken care of, the freedom for human innovation is limitless. People don't have to spend all day worrying about how they're going to eat, or if they'll freeze to death at night (though unfortunately some still do in America - funnily enough, the rate of this depth of poverty is lower in more regulated countries).
You went from talking of a view issues to talking of my entire platform. That is a goal shift. Second, my type of government has actually been(pretty much) tried once, but it failed due to demands of the people and modern liberalism spreading the globe. It however was doing well before that came to be.My goal post has not move. I have been consistently rebutting your basless and fanciful claims. You say you think it will just be utopia (without giving me any reason other than that you think it), yet I can't think of a single example in history of your kind of government leading to that. And certainly not in modern history where competitiveness depends on connectivity and assured thresholds of education.
This is the fundamental problem in social order. When the country was founded a big step was taken and a responsibility was given to the people. This gave way to the possibility that the people would solve social issues and with empowerment of the private means of production there was real hope that (classic)liberalism and the power of the idea it gave birth too was going to take hold. Predictably people like Marx where born and the idea liberalism and the power of social justice took hold again and all the progress that could of been was never to be. Instead we regressed back to what we were doing for 2000 years, not solving our social problems, not allowing freedom, and using government for fix the world. I don't believe in regression and believing in government as you guys do is regressive in nature and doesn't allow the possibility of real meaningful growth as individual people.Societies have concluded that government should provide certain social welfare functions, the major differences being how extensive (can be a problem if they grow to unsustainable levels financially and in terms of administration) and in what fashion (can also be a problem e.g., the pay-as-you go design is inherently flawed in the face of demographic shift toward a relatively older population). Fiscal consolidation will need to address both aspects of the nation's social welfare system. It almost certainly will not eliminate it.
I have been trying to figure out what you want but I just don't appear to have the ability to do it, sorry. Can you talk in more direct means for me?A similar situation exists with rspect to foreign policy. As a nation's power grows (political, economic, and military), especially in a world that is becoming ever more interconnected (trade, capital, information flows), it has a growing number of overseas interests and also has international allies. While it must be careful to avoid overreach, abdication (even non-interventionism aka "soft isolationism" that embraces trade, but nothing else in foreign policy) also undermines its interests and security. It must find a careful balance based on a combination of its ideals, critical interests, and allies.
Last edited by Henrin; 05-27-11 at 08:36 AM.
Last edited by donsutherland1; 05-27-11 at 09:05 AM.
the big 3, according to most the insiders, are charlie cook, larry sabato and stan greenberg
but truly i have found both rcp's jay cost and sean trende more helpful
here's trende's look at ny26, in a certain context
special elections since obama's inauguration:
hawaii 1, may of 2010, obama's home district, republican charles djou beat a divided pair of dems propelled by boss inouye's little inside snit
djou lost his seat back to blue in november
pennsylvania 12, jonestown, also may of 10, jack murtha's seat, dem mark critz held it by seven by running against obamacare, and he's still there today
new york 23, november, 09, the same nite chris christie and bob mcdonnell stormed trenton and richmond---it was the famous dede scozzafava scrap, dem and working families party candidate bill owens beat tea drinker doug hoffman by 2
new york 20, gillibrand's seat, march of 09, hudson river valley, upstate---dem scott murphy beat jim tedisco by half a percent
trende concludes: since 1990, the party that has netted the most special election seats has gone on to lose membership in the next ensuing general 58% of the time
RealClearPolitics - Quick Thoughts on NY-26