Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Complete Annihilation of American Liberty

The Complete Annihilation of American Liberty (Page 8)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 11:47 AM
 
What goes around comes around...

I remember posting here saying that we should pull out of Iraq because this is what the majority of people wanted, according to the polls which also showed an extremely low approval rating during the twilight of Bush's second term. I was shunned by the same Republican types in here that are now saying that we based our legislation on real-time polling.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Polls show that 54% of Americans support the Lady of the Lake, but only 42% describe her as "trustworthy."

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 11:48 AM
 
Wow, I just channeled Dakar!

... Wait, why are my eyes bleeding?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 11:49 AM
 
I'm wondering how long it will be before we have polls about other polls...
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What goes around comes around...

I remember posting here saying that we should pull out of Iraq because this is what the majority of people wanted, according to the polls which also showed an extremely low approval rating during the twilight of Bush's second term. I was shunned by the same Republican types in here that are now saying that we based our legislation on real-time polling.
Well, one difference is, the Afghan and Iraq wars were originally supported not only by a majority of Americans but also bipartisan majorities in Congress. The same is not true for this corrupt health law, which passed by narrow partisan majorities and was rejected by the majority of Americans.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 11:59 AM
 
They were heavily supported because we were given false information and assumed they knew more then they were letting on.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:05 PM
 
Isn't it good to have your boys and girls back home from the 'stans now that Uncle Barry has brought change to the situation?
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Isn't it good to have your boys and girls back home from the 'stans now that Uncle Barry has brought change to the situation?
But my brother-in-law is in Afghanistan right n... Oh.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:12 PM
 
Iraqistan?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:13 PM
 
Yes.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Well, one difference is, the Afghan and Iraq wars were originally supported not only by a majority of Americans but also bipartisan majorities in Congress. The same is not true for this corrupt health law, which passed by narrow partisan majorities and was rejected by the majority of Americans.
Don't know what circles you run with, but in the college crowd the Afghanistan war was heavily supported and the Iraq war was heavily opposed before we invaded. The minute Iraq got brought up I was immediately convinced something fishy was going on.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:20 PM
 
in 1991, or later?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm wondering how long it will be before we have polls about other polls...
http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...e-been-public/
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
in 1991, or later?
Not the first Gulf War, I was only 8 years old.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Not the first Gulf War, I was only 8 years old.
There's only been one.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Don't know what circles you run with, but in the college crowd the Afghanistan war was heavily supported and the Iraq war was heavily opposed before we invaded. The minute Iraq got brought up I was immediately convinced something fishy was going on.
Same here. The Iraq thing came out of nowhere and felt really random.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:26 PM
 
What is this whole national defense insurance?

This whole Iraq War I ain't buying.

Can I get my money back?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
No matter what other argument anyone wishes to use, our supposed representatives, those elected to govern according to their constituents' wishes voted AGAINST their constituents desires:

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan
Let me see.

CNN poll:
Favor: 39%
Oppose: 59%

Damn! Oh Wait.

Here's the breakdown.

Favor: 39%
Oppose, too liberal: 43%
Oppose, not liberal enough: 13%


Haha..

Public demands the public option or single payer.


If we based it on public option polls, wouldn't the public option passed last year?

77% of the US population supports the public option in 2009?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_264375.html
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Same here. The Iraq thing came out of nowhere and felt really random.
Random? I'm guessing you hadn't been paying attention to the news about all of Saddam's no-fly-zone breaches in the ten years prior then?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Random? I'm guessing you hadn't been paying attention to the news about all of Saddam's no-fly-zone breaches in the ten years prior then?
Yeah, and what was the tipping point?
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:40 PM
 
Saddam was a medium level baddie and a blowhard, we might as well invade every other dictatorship on the planet if we are interested in making the world a cuddly place full of puppies.

We were sold BS about him having WMDs, which he had none of, this was the only way the US would have been duped to go to war with yet another country and leave the first worthwhile conflict to flounder and eventually crumble.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeah, and what was the tipping point?
Slow slide, wasn't it?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Slow slide, wasn't it?
...so the tipping point was?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
We were sold BS about him having WMDs, which he had none of, this was the only way the US would have been duped to go to war with yet another country and leave the first worthwhile conflict to flounder and eventually crumble.
I still don't believe that Saddam didn't have WMDs. We know he attacked his own people with them. And we know that he had the means to deliver the payload to the capital of the USA.

And there's no way Afghanistan was going to work anyway (well, not unless we blanket bombed the place). If the Russians couldn't do them, then there's no chance of us pansies doing them.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
...so the tipping point was?
Invasion of Kuwait.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Invasion of Kuwait.
That's not what he's asking and you know it. If we decided today that we couldn't any longer live with the current North Korean regime and launched an attack on it, would the "tipping point" be June 1950? Of course not.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
That's not what he's asking and you know it.
There's only ever been one Gulf War - with a ten year conditional ceasefire in-between two bouts. Any alliance country was within its rights to resume hostilities at any point after Saddam breached the ceasefire conditions.

Now, I'd got the US pegged as going tits-up somewhere around 2000/2001. Could see it coming a mile off. Added to this, at that point Saddam was threatening to sell in Euros - which would create a major hit for the dollar. So why resume at that time? To put another 7/8 years on the clock before things start going pear-shaped again.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
There's only ever been one Gulf War - with a ten year conditional ceasefire in-between two bouts. Any alliance country was within its rights to resume hostilities at any point after Saddam breached the ceasefire conditions.
And given that, his question is why the United States would choose to resume hostilities at that particular point.

Now, I'd got the US pegged as going tits-up somewhere around 2000/2001. Could see it coming a mile off. Added to this, at that point Saddam was threatening to sell in Euros - which would create a major hit for the dollar. So why resume at that time? To put another 7/8 years on the clock before things start going pear-shaped again.
See, now you are engaging his question. Although, given you were off by 2+ years (a rather significant amount in the context of a 10 year window) your answer is not impressive.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 01:16 PM
 
Can we dilute the thread any further with irrelevancies? Come on, can't someone mention no child left behind or something?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Although, given you were off by 2+ years (a rather significant amount in the context of a 10 year window) your answer is not impressive.
I'm nowhere geeky enough to be bothered with accurate dates. You can be though, if you like.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
I am seriously suggesting the people elected should govern according to the Constitution - and this bunch isn't - you have already demonstrated a COMPLETE lack of understanding of the civics of the United States.

It is CONGRESS' responsibility to create legislation according to the will of the People - then the President signs it in affirmation of that will. That is why the CONGRESS makes the laws, not the President - the House is supposed to represent the will of the people - directly (so - yes - that means they are SUPPOSED to look at polls and have direct communication with their constituents via town halls, etc.) and the Senate is supposed to represent the rights of the individual states. If you want to make claims, at least KNOW civics first.

We don't elect a king or dictator for 4 years, then be required to shut up and take whatever he or she decides to cram down our throats.

Every single one of them was fully aware that this was an overwhelmingly dissaproved of legislation - they then went "banana republic" and did it anyway "for our own good."
So are you suggesting the previous administration payed attention to what the constituents wanted when sending troops into Iraq?
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
So are you suggesting the previous administration payed attention to what the constituents wanted when sending troops into Iraq?
Sure did!

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Like to also point out the Democrats never "sat down on the bench and shut up" during the previous administration, either.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Sure did!

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Like to also point out the Democrats never "sat down on the bench and shut up" during the previous administration, either.
Are you ignoring Rumor's point on purpose or do you like contradicting yourself? He said that there was a discrepancy between public opinion (= the constituents) and Congress in the matter of the Second Iraq War and Congress went ahead anyway.
You write that law makers should guide their decisions by polls and by staying in touch with the people they represent (`so - yes - that means they are SUPPOSED to look at polls and have direct communication with their constituents via town halls, etc.') and then you link to a bill. Why haven't you linked to a poll?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 08:40 PM
 
So...if you are in favor of putting the health insurance companies out of business, and putting everyone on a single-payer system, I have a question...

Why are you against a person's right to choose?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 08:49 PM
 
I guess those who hold that view believe the government can provide the service in a better way than the market can. They're called Socialists.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, uttering death threats, against anyone, not just the president, is protected speech?
If rights are not absolute, then you have no rights. When you have certain types of speech being "protected" and other types not, you are essentially living under a system where the government decides what the citizens are allowed to say based upon the prevailing wisdom at the time. This opens the door to greater and greater imposition on your "rights" as times change. We have already seen attempts at merely "offensive" speech being outlawed, and speech at certain times.

How is it a right if it's up to someone else how you can exercise it?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
If rights are not absolute, then you have no rights. When you have certain types of speech being "protected" and other types not, you are essentially living under a system where the government decides what the citizens are allowed to say based upon the prevailing wisdom at the time. This opens the door to greater and greater imposition on your "rights" as times change. We have already seen attempts at merely "offensive" speech being outlawed, and speech at certain times.

How is it a right if it's up to someone else how you can exercise it?
It's not "up to someone else," it's a compromise between you and someone else. Few rights come without impinging on the rights of others, at least in a densely populated society like ours, and the purpose of government is to strike a fair balance when the rights of two people conflict. That's what we have people called "judges" for, to "judge" what is the most reasonable balance when not everyone can be 100% satisfied.

I think you guys are missing the point of free speech. The point is to be able to use words as a tool to communicate, not to use words as a tool to make yourself a pain in the ass. There is a difference. Using free speech to argue against someone is different than using speech to intimidate them. Do you understand this?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 09:51 PM
 
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 09:57 PM
 
Amazing. But apparently it's going to control 300 Americans, so that let's the other 300,000,000+ off.

I like Conyers citing "Good and Welfare" Clause of the Constitution as the authority for this legislation.

We give these senile bastards authority to rule our lives. They probably didn't have much going for themselves intellectually to begin with. Incredible.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's not "up to someone else," it's a compromise between you and someone else.
Compromise implies that there is a choice.

Few rights come without impinging on the rights of others, at least in a densely populated society like ours,
I don't agree and regardless of all the examples people use such as threats and iciting violence (with regard to free speech), I don't see speech itself as having the ability to infringe on another's rights and no speech should be illegal.

Using free speech to argue against someone is different than using speech to intimidate them. Do you understand this?
I understand that is your opinion, and that of most people, our goverment and the SCOTUS. I just disagree with the principle. No speech has EVER directly infringed or taken away the rights of another person. The worst it can ever do is either incite another's action against another person, or illicit a negative action/response from those listening, which still puts the choice of whether or not to act and thus the blame squarely on the shoulders of the "listener" in any case.

I do agree that what someone says may be probable cause and warrent further investigation, but what he actually says should never be illegal.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Compromise implies that there is a choice.



I don't agree and regardless of all the examples people use such as threats and iciting violence (with regard to free speech), I don't see speech itself as having the ability to infringe on another's rights and no speech should be illegal.



I understand that is your opinion, and that of most people, our goverment and the SCOTUS. I just disagree with the principle. No speech has EVER directly infringed or taken away the rights of another person. The worst it can ever do is either incite another's action against another person, or illicit a negative action/response from those listening, which still puts the choice of whether or not to act and thus the blame squarely on the shoulders of the "listener" in any case.

I do agree that what someone says may be probable cause and warrent further investigation, but what he actually says should never be illegal.
Do you have examples of people who have gone to jail and/or been convicted of criminal offenses due solely to speech in the last, oh, 50 years?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Do you have examples of people who have gone to jail and/or been convicted of criminal offenses due solely to speech in the last, oh, 50 years?
Don't know if he was convicted, but he was arrested ...
Sound engineer held over Bush death threats
2.30pm GMT / 9.30am ET | World news | guardian.co.uk
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Do you have examples of people who have gone to jail and/or been convicted of criminal offenses due solely to speech in the last, oh, 50 years?
Oh, and there's this:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.
Threatening the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2010, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Oh, and there's this:

Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.
Yeah, I think I've already come out in this thread saying the 'threatening the President' law is questionable. (Not that I don't think the Secret Service should be able to, uh, 'inconvenience' you with an investigation should you make what they consider credible threats.) Thing is, criminal cases outside that, as far as I can tell, are pretty few and far between.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 12:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Compromise implies that there is a choice.
No, compromise implies that you think of someone besides you once in a while, that's why it seems foreign to you.


No speech has EVER directly infringed or taken away the rights of another person. The worst it can ever do is either incite another's action against another person, or illicit a negative action/response from those listening, which still puts the choice of whether or not to act and thus the blame squarely on the shoulders of the "listener" in any case.

I do agree that what someone says may be probable cause and warrent further investigation, but what he actually says should never be illegal.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Bearing false witness (in or out of court)? Fraud? False advertising? Lying on your taxes? You think that any harm caused by any of these should be blamed on the "listener"?
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 12:29 AM
 
I don't think freedom of speech should mean freedom from accountability for the ramifications of speech. And yes, sometimes government has a role as arbiter of said accountability.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Yeah, I think I've already come out in this thread saying the 'threatening the President' law is questionable.
It doesn't matter if you think the law is questionable.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
I don't think freedom of speech should mean freedom from accountability for the ramifications of speech. And yes, sometimes government has a role as arbiter of said accountability.
Let's keep "government" in perspective. The people expect accountability. They should expect "government" accountability.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
Let's keep "government" in perspective. The people expect accountability. They should expect "government" accountability.
Yes, also true, but not really relevant to the point I was making.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I guess those who hold that view believe the government can provide the service in a better way than the market can. They're called Socialists.
Well there was that paper recently that claimed to prove that markets are efficient if and only if P = NP... It's yet to be published and/or peer reviewed, and I don't claim to know enough about economics to really understand its implications, but it seems to me that if this paper is correct we may have to revise our notions about market economies and their effectiveness. What if markets aren't the best way? This doesn't, of course, mean that handing things over to our government is, but it's certainly something to think about!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:02 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,