The Glade 4.0

Because it's utterly unqualified to deal with those issues. In fact, it can only make them worse. Government interference is what causes most of these problems to begin with.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

What's your basis for believing that? I just find it hard to believe you really think such a sweeping statement is true. Do you really think that every government action in the social and economic spheres has been and always will make things worse. Anti-discrimination laws (including race, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, etc.), public education, banning child pornography, funding infrastructure development (roads, sewers, telecom, electricity), providing health care subsidies, product safety regulations, consumer protection and disclosure requirements, etc., etc.....society would be better off today if government had never done any of that? Really?

Taly will probably come back with her own rebuttal, but of those things you listed, most of them can be reduced to two different actions... the role of the government as defined in our Constitution to protect the rights of the citizens (almost all of those are covered by that), or as is more typically the case, actively seeking to "correct", not protect, whatever the group in power things needs to be fixed. Take discrimination laws for example. There is a distinct difference between protecting the rights of everyone to equal opportunity, and implementing programs designed to merely reverse the flow.

So, I would say the issue is less of staying completely out of social issues, but only doing what is mandated by the Constitution.

Let's deal with those:
Anti-discrimination laws were created to reverse government-caused discrimination problems to start with. It's the racist, sexist, bigoted pigs that have been in government making laws that allowed all these things from the start. All men are created equal, but we'll legally alow slavery. And we'll only specify men, women can't legally vote. Nevermind that we'll legally discriminate against gays and lesbians, too...etc. And what do you know, their "corrections" (when they finally come) lead to more discrimination. (See "affirmative action.") It's never enough for them to simply remove the existing government impediments to equality - thereby taking government out of the equation. Intead they have to go in the opposite direction, righting wrongs with more wrongs.

The other things you list are "infrastructure" and individual rights issues, which are independant things from social and economic issues.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It's only excessive and absurd when it's the other guy. When MY side does it, it's honorable and even patriotic. AND, if I'm a comic, it's also intelligent. Although I may personally question the veracity of that position, that's the popular prevalent reality and you can't argue against reality.

Laws always make things worse... from some particular point of view. Laws are the results of conflicts, and with law being the deciding factor, there's always a winner and a loser.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

While I get the point your going for, I disagree. There are plenty of people on "my side" that have been excessive and absurd. The local example would be Monte. While I agreed with some of his points, he was irrational in the extreme on many issues. Similarly there are those in Politics that are the same.

I'm a centrist. I feel quite literally and honestly smack dab in the middle between the 'Monty' type left and 'Glen Beck' type right (I'm not sure who the Glade conservative's conservative is), and I can see some ... merit, if you will, in each position.

The thought that a comic's opinion on things is relevant though...that takes the cake. Folks who believe Comic so-and-so is so smart usually share a party affiliation with said comic, I've noticed. They can be funny and clever, but they're there for entertainment and don't really have the level of credibility certain folks wish they did, when they agree with the comic, of course.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

While I applaud your acknowledgment of tht, I doubt very much that the people attending the rally will be so forthright. I've seen on other boards precisely the sentiment that Taskiss is talking about regarding this rally.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Everyone calm down, George W Bush is out of office there's no need for rallies anymore!

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

But there's not only two sides.

I see three. The nutty and insane Libs, the nutty and dangerous religious social conservatives, and the rational and sane people like me that just want to be left alone by the govt.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Start the Bull Müs party!

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Camel Müs Party?

_________________

Perhaps. At some level I'm not really even talking about what people might show up for the rally. I'm talking about what the stated goal of the rally is. It specifically is using neutral language and calling out some of the nutty extreme things that both sides have done.

It will be interesting to see what comes of it either way.

Oh, there are plenty of nutty "just want to be left alone by the govt" types too. The fact is, my views represent the one true, rational, and sane position, and all y'all are just varying degrees of nuts in one direction or another. Also, I'd like to point out that everyone who drives faster than I do is reckless, and everyone who drives slower is an idiot; my boss always sets unrealistic deadlines, but the people I supervise are just plain inefficient; my various neighbors over the years were all either noisy and inconsiderate or hypersensitive and pushy; etc., etc.

Then why are the Democrats running against him again this year?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Like between two boobies, right in the center is the best place to be, politically speaking.

Clearly, you don't know anything about what it contained.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Clearly you're just a troll.

Clearly, I just like saying clearly.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Really?

What part is "workable?"

The part where it's cheaper for probably every employer in the country to kick the employees off insurance? The part where you have to keep detailed proof of insurance for every day of the year? The part where the only legal price differentiation is based upon geographic location? The part where you can wait until you have CHF, or COPD, or diabetes to purchase insurance, and then you'll have no lifetime maximum? The part where compliance with this law will wholly violate Stark and Sarbanes-Oxley unless specific exceptions are given? The part where you are required not only to purchase insurance, but to purchase insurance that may include things you don't give a damn about, such as vision coverage or long-term care?

This is the smallest of snippets of a fraction of what's in the bill. Now, tell me which of those things is "workable," since you know so much about healthcare.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I can tell you that is not that difficult. It doesn't sound any different from what MD drivers currently have to do.

I don't disagree, but at the same time, how often do you change your auto insurance carrier, and has the auto insurance industry just been hit with a thousands page long regulatory document that describes what they must insure, how much, and where the premiums must be spent?

I can see a lot of people getting stuck between health insurance plans as this shakes out and companies drop insurance plans, insurance companies drop policy types (mine is no longer legal when this takes full effect), etc. Based upon the law, each individual will have defend why they were without coverage for any period of time once the law kicks in. For the first year or so, this could be an absolute nightmare, until plans settle down.

Yeah, probably. There's definately going to be a bumpy ride for a bit.

There is no defense. Failure to comply results in tax penalties, for any length of gap.



I believe you meant to say for the next decade or so, unless you were speaking specifically to this one particular clause.



Care to address my question to you?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Nope. Not going to waste either of our time.