Government is...

[Woodruff]

Government is something that we put in place to protect our freedoms, but all too often it has the opposite result.

I disagree.

Governments almost always, as in 99.99% of the time, protect the freedoms of the majority of their citizens. Most of the moaning about them comes from highly vocal minorities, who are inevitably making unreasonable demands for special treatment and whose wishes do not correspond with the majority of their fellow countrymen's.

It is seldom that governments do not protect the freedom of society, but it is often that they have to say 'no' to the selfish shouting of dissident minorities.

Is this sarcasm? I actually agree with most of this.

Yeah, those damn slaves with their being unreasonable. And those damn Vietnam Vets with their being unreasonable. And those damn current active duty military returning from war being unreasonable. And those damn peaceful protesters with their being unreasonable.

[Phatscotty]

When the citizens force the gov't to deal with the issues, that is liberty.

When gov't forces the issue against the will of the citizens, that is tyranny.

[rockfist]

I've been pondering this for a while and this is the best I can come up with:

Government is a social disease.

[InkL0sed]

I've been thinking about this for a very long minute, and I have come up with the answer.

Government is the most epic troll ever.

[Phatscotty]

a necessary evil...

[rockfist]

only at its best Scotty, only at its best.

[King Doctor]

Government is a social disease.

It would only seem so to selfish minorities who were demanding more than was their Fair Share from the state.

To regular citizens that worked hard and did not expect Something For Nothing, the government is a social blessing.

[King Doctor]

When the citizens force the gov't to deal with the issues, that is liberty.

Yeah!

Terrorism = Liberty


I'm so glad you brought that one up Phatty, your sociological analysis the best!

When gov't forces the issue against the will of the citizens, that is tyranny.

Yeah!

Isolated Nazi Nutters being told to f*ck off and accept civil rights for all = TYRANNY!!!


Another reasonable and well thought-out point from Phattso! Hurrah!

[the.killing.44]

Government is something that we put in place to protect our freedoms, but all too often it has the opposite result.

I disagree.

Governments almost always, as in 99.99% of the time, protect the freedoms of the majority of their citizens. Most of the moaning about them comes from highly vocal minorities, who are inevitably making unreasonable demands for special treatment and whose wishes do not correspond with the majority of their fellow countrymen's.

It is seldom that governments do not protect the freedom of society, but it is often that they have to say 'no' to the selfish shouting of dissident minorities.

Is this sarcasm? I actually agree with most of this.

Yeah, those damn slaves with their being unreasonable. And those damn Vietnam Vets with their being unreasonable. And those damn current active duty military returning from war being unreasonable. And those damn peaceful protesters with their being unreasonable.

Slaves were not citizens.

[PLAYER57832]

When the citizens force the gov't to deal with the issues, that is liberty.

When gov't forces the issue against the will of the citizens, that is tyranny.

Except, someone ALWAYS has to be "forced", because not everyone agrees about what it is right and what is wrong. Furthermore, many people want things that are absolutely wrong for society.

[InkL0sed]

When the citizens force the gov't to deal with the issues, that is liberty.

When gov't forces the issue against the will of the citizens, that is tyranny.

When everybody agrees with everybody else, that is MADNESS

[PLAYER57832]

Government is something that we put in place to protect our freedoms, but all too often it has the opposite result.

I disagree.

Governments almost always, as in 99.99% of the time, protect the freedoms of the majority of their citizens. Most of the moaning about them comes from highly vocal minorities, who are inevitably making unreasonable demands for special treatment and whose wishes do not correspond with the majority of their fellow countrymen's.

It is seldom that governments do not protect the freedom of society, but it is often that they have to say 'no' to the selfish shouting of dissident minorities.

Is this sarcasm? I actually agree with most of this.

Study history. The worst tyrannies are when a minority -- be it a racial class, or social/economic class, are in charge. They use tyranny to maintain controll.

AND, that tyranny usually starts with "protecting people's rights". You lop off those words and don't realize how often they are and have been used not to forward freedoms, but to suppress it. That the Donald Trumps of this world can do as they like is irrelevant. When someone, anyone is allowed to come in an pollute MY water, my town and there is no regard for responsibility becuase no one could or had the the money to prove it would be harmful, in advance... that is wrong.

The EPA came about for good reasons. Environmental regulations have good reason. Do they sometimes interfere with what some folks want to do to make money? Yes. But, that is because our great, great, great grandchildren's right to have a species overrides anyone's right to make money.

Is it an "honerous requirement" to have to send your children to school, that they need to be taught various specified things? Yes, but if we are to have a functioning democracy, it requires an educated and informed population, not mindless robots.

Does "protecting minorities" sometimes mean that you have to put up with people you dislike? Yes, but guess what, so do they!

[Woodruff]

Government is something that we put in place to protect our freedoms, but all too often it has the opposite result.

I disagree.

Governments almost always, as in 99.99% of the time, protect the freedoms of the majority of their citizens. Most of the moaning about them comes from highly vocal minorities, who are inevitably making unreasonable demands for special treatment and whose wishes do not correspond with the majority of their fellow countrymen's.

It is seldom that governments do not protect the freedom of society, but it is often that they have to say 'no' to the selfish shouting of dissident minorities.

Is this sarcasm? I actually agree with most of this.

Yeah, those damn slaves with their being unreasonable. And those damn Vietnam Vets with their being unreasonable. And those damn current active duty military returning from war being unreasonable. And those damn peaceful protesters with their being unreasonable.

Slaves were not citizens.

You're starting to catch on...

[jimboston]

Player can you stop quoting me and typing. It hhurts to read what you write, but I feel I must when there's a quote from me buried in there.

Better yet... just stop typing.

... or at least limit your posts to one paragraph.

If you talk as much as you type, your husband must be deaf by now.

[King Doctor]

If you talk as much as you type, your husband must be deaf by now.

What an informed and insightful reply. I can certainly see why you are held in such high regard by other intelligent posters here; what sensible fellows they are to hold you and your contributions in such high esteem.



By which I obviously mean: Oh look, another lightweight right-wing troll trying to insult Player out of a thread now she's started kicking their asses in it. Weaksauce.

[jimboston]

If you talk as much as you type, your husband must be deaf by now.

What an informed and insightful reply. I can certainly see why you are held in such high regard by other intelligent posters here; what sensible fellows they are to hold you and your contributions in such high esteem.



By which I obviously mean: Oh look, another lightweight right-wing troll trying to insult Player out of a thread now she's started kicking their asses in it. Weaksauce.

Wow... you're so right Doctor. I am going to leave now and go reexamine my life because your (un) witty retorts have shown me how much of a mental lightweight I am.

Oh wait... you didn't actually say anything.

OK.. nix that.

[King Doctor]

Wow... you're so right Doctor. I am going to leave now and go reexamine my life because your (un) witty retorts have shown me how much of a mental lightweight I am.

Oh wait... you didn't actually say anything.

Gosh. Same trick twice in a row, even when it didn't work the first time, really?


Seriously, who told you that flapping your arms and honking lame pre-schooler insults at people who were demolishing your arguments/technique was a good idea? What makes you think that shrieking abuse at us is going to make us stop pointing out how little you have to contribute to these threads and/or how you inevitably seek to drag them down to insult-trading when you realise that you're losing?

Your odd little playground tactics aren't going to work here. You're not in kindergarten any more.

[jimboston]

Wow... you're so right Doctor. I am going to leave now and go reexamine my life because your (un) witty retorts have shown me how much of a mental lightweight I am.

Oh wait... you didn't actually say anything.

Gosh. Same trick twice in a row, even when it didn't work the first time, really?


Seriously, who told you that flapping your arms and honking lame pre-schooler insults at people who were demolishing your arguments/technique was a good idea? What makes you think that shrieking abuse at us is going to make us stop pointing out how little you have to contribute to these threads and/or how you inevitably seek to drag them down to insult-trading when you realise that you're losing?

Your odd little playground tactics aren't going to work here. You're not in kindergarten any more.

OK... now reread what I actually wrote.

No where is my post do I...
-> Honk
-> Flap my arms
-> Throw insults
-> Shriek

If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you will note that I agreed with you... and then I thought better of it.

Please show me one insult in my post that you quoted.

I didn't think so.

[PLAYER57832]

Player can you stop quoting me and typing. It hhurts to read what you write, but I feel I must when there's a quote from me buried in there.

Better yet... just stop typing.

... or at least limit your posts to one paragraph.

Here is the one sentence version: Any group that cannot bear to hear the other side is heading toward tyranny.

[jimboston]

Player can you stop quoting me and typing. It hhurts to read what you write, but I feel I must when there's a quote from me buried in there.

Better yet... just stop typing.

... or at least limit your posts to one paragraph.

Here is the one sentence version: Any group that cannot bear to hear the other side is heading toward tyranny.

Thank you... my head will now NOT explode.

[rockfist]

Whenever someone uses the phrase "Fair Share" its a thinly veiled reference to wealth redistribution and its reprehensible. But, you can't use the phrase wealth redistribution at least not regularly so you have to say "fair share" because it sounds like something a reasonable person would support, until you really study what it means.

[King Doctor]

OK... now reread what I actually wrote.

No where is my post do I...
-> Honk
-> Flap my arms
-> Throw insults
-> Shriek

If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you will note that I agreed with you... and then I thought better of it.

Please show me one insult in my post that you quoted.

I didn't think so.

This is a classic passive-aggressive strategy.

You attempt to troll and insult somebody with sarcasm and insincerity, then when called on it play the "who me?!" card and attempt to feign innocence.

You hope that I will be too insecure to point this out and that I will give you a free pass on such behaviour in the future, but unfortunately for you I am too smart to be sucked into those kind of kindergarten tricks.

[Metsfanmax]

Whenever someone uses the phrase "Fair Share" its a thinly veiled reference to wealth redistribution and its reprehensible. But, you can't use the phrase wealth redistribution at least not regularly so you have to say "fair share" because it sounds like something a reasonable person would support, until you really study what it means.

I do not understand what is "reprehensible" about wealth redistribution. It's a quite simple application of the golden rule.

[King Doctor]

Whenever someone uses the phrase "Fair Share" its a thinly veiled reference to wealth redistribution and its reprehensible.

Actually, I was using it to describe the amount that citizens are actually entitled to from the State. Not to describe the big fat chunk of cash that minorities inevitably demand from it, before claiming tyranny when they are not given special treatment.

[rockfist]

Whenever someone uses the phrase "Fair Share" its a thinly veiled reference to wealth redistribution and its reprehensible. But, you can't use the phrase wealth redistribution at least not regularly so you have to say "fair share" because it sounds like something a reasonable person would support, until you really study what it means.

I do not understand what is "reprehensible" about wealth redistribution. It's a quite simple application of the golden rule.

The golden rule is do onto others as you would have done onto you. When you use the state to demand people's wealth you are stealing. When people give of their wealth freely it is entirely different. Come by my house and I will give you dinner and have a debate with you...come by my house and DEMAND I give you something and their will be no debate taking place, of that I can assure you.