Because it is not practical - it is the idea that the individual want/need is more important than what's best for the group want/need. Now I know this goes back to the mention of ideals, morality, etc.. but the individual's responsibilities in society have accountability to the greater group involved... ie sum of the whole.
A very simple example which not to get into a side debate at all about this subject matter but, when kids don't get vaccines because their parents are afraid for reason x or y. Then at some point one of these kids get sick and an outbreak starts and effect everyone.
Lastly, people don't leave war-ridden, impoverished nations because it's a great place. They obviously love their home, culture and all that goes with it, but the original poster and my comments were directed at the state of affairs - not the people and that's a clear distinction you seemed to miss.
what is practical about me saying quit telling me to wear a god damn seatbelt and putting me in a region where warlords control and infringe on the rights of people everyday? The somali refugees I deal with everyday would spit in your face for saying that, and that is the truth.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Because it is not practical - it is the idea that the individual want/need is more important than what's best for the group want/need. Now I know this goes back to the mention of ideals, morality, etc.. but the individual's responsibilities in society have accountability to the greater group involved... ie sum of the whole.
A very simple example which not to get into a side debate at all about this subject matter but, when kids don't get vaccines because their parents are afraid for reason x or y. Then at some point one of these kids get sick and an outbreak starts and effect everyone.
Lastly, people don't leave war-ridden, impoverished nations because it's a great place. They obviously love their home, culture and all that goes with it, but the original poster and my comments were directed at the state of affairs - not the people and that's a clear distinction you seemed to miss.
what is practical about me saying quit telling me to wear a god damn seatbelt and putting me in a region where warlords control and infringe on the rights of people everyday? The somali refugees I deal with everyday would spit in your face for saying that, and that is the truth.
The state of affairs in Somalia are not comparable to what I am saying at ALL. I understood what he was saying, but to equate the two and bring that into the argument was in poor taste at best, and a gross misunderstanding of what I am talking about at worst... What I was saying before about public health risks and private health risks still holds true. My not wearing protective equipment is not the same as my causing an outbreak of an illness that can severely damage someone ELSE.
I agree that an individual's actions add into the sum of the whole, but things that don't affect the whole should not be legislated. I guess we just disagree as to the extent of those things.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree about the comparison. I find it neither in poor taste and relevant to the original poster's mention.
Well since you're so hell bent on safety - how about this analogy. Everyone who has either health or is forced to get car insurance (because they drive) has a responsibility to act accordingly because your individual actions do effect the group. In a car for example, your driving effects others - and if you don't wear a seat buckle it can effect others. Let's say you get into an accident and it can effect your insurance.. and if you get hurt - where does your coverage come from? Answer - the pool everyone contributes too. Now I know this is a very basic and generalized example, but you singular actions can and do effect the greater whole. In terms of health insurance - it's the same exact premise.
The basic idea of not legislating things that don't affect everyone doesn't work. It undermines just about everything we have in our society - whether it's a federalist state, programs or policies which effect all involved. Perhaps bloated programs and sometimes questionable morality calls, the majority protecting the minority is one of the key facets of our nation - otherwise we'd simply be what we've been slowly crawling towards - oligarchy (two classes -rich and poor).
The state of affairs in Somalia are not comparable to what I am saying at ALL. I understood what he was saying, but to equate the two and bring that into the argument was in poor taste at best, and a gross misunderstanding of what I am talking about at worst... What I was saying before about public health risks and private health risks still holds true. My not wearing protective equipment is not the same as my causing an outbreak of an illness that can severely damage someone ELSE.
I agree that an individual's actions add into the sum of the whole, but things that don't affect the whole should not be legislated. I guess we just disagree as to the extent of those things.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree about the comparison. I find it neither in poor taste and relevant to the original poster's mention.
Comparing the plight of people in somalia with the notion that the government is overstepping its boundaries with some laws is not a valid comparison.
Well since you're so hell bent on safety I am not hell bent on safety...it was the example I chose, like I said in a previous post, I wish I had just chosen my pigeon example, because then maybe people would have just understood it and moved on.
Everyone who has either health or is forced to get car insurance (because they drive) has a responsibility to act accordingly because your individual actions do effect the group. In a car for example, your driving effects others - and if you don't wear a seat buckle it can effect others. Let's say you get into an accident and it can effect your insurance.. and if you get hurt - where does your coverage come from? Answer - the pool everyone contributes too. Now I know this is a very basic and generalized example, but you singular actions can and do effect the greater whole. In terms of health insurance - it's the same exact premise.
If I pay my health insurance premiums, I am paying for the coverage. If I am paying my car insurance premiums I am paying for the coverage, so if I get in an accident I am covered. I don't understand how it costs everyone money? It costs the company that is selling me a service money.
The basic idea of not legislating things that don't affect everyone doesn't work. It undermines just about everything we have in our society - How? You are misinterpreting my point maybe...anything that effects other people should be legislated, we just have a different idea of what those things are maybe[/i}
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You are missing and confusing the point about the Somalia reference. It was used as an example of a nation which has corruption, crime, loose or no regulation and free enterprise. That is not a reflection on all Somalian's any more the US fighting a war in Iraq means that our entire nation is for it. You're making a clear and mistaken leap about the two.
In terms of the car insurance example - your car insurance isn't merely coverage for you in the simplest terms, your premiums (if unused) go to the pool which pay out others in need. That's how insurance works. So if everyone draws out of the pool, the insurance company is screwed and everyone's premiums go up...and this is one of the many of the reasons we see health insurance so f'ed up.
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree about the comparison. I find it neither in poor taste and relevant to the original poster's mention.
Comparing the plight of people in somalia with the notion that the government is overstepping its boundaries with some laws is not a valid comparison.
Well since you're so hell bent on safety I am not hell bent on safety...it was the example I chose, like I said in a previous post, I wish I had just chosen my pigeon example, because then maybe people would have just understood it and moved on.
Everyone who has either health or is forced to get car insurance (because they drive) has a responsibility to act accordingly because your individual actions do effect the group. In a car for example, your driving effects others - and if you don't wear a seat buckle it can effect others. Let's say you get into an accident and it can effect your insurance.. and if you get hurt - where does your coverage come from? Answer - the pool everyone contributes too. Now I know this is a very basic and generalized example, but you singular actions can and do effect the greater whole. In terms of health insurance - it's the same exact premise.
If I pay my health insurance premiums, I am paying for the coverage. If I am paying my car insurance premiums I am paying for the coverage, so if I get in an accident I am covered. I don't understand how it costs everyone money? It costs the company that is selling me a service money.
The basic idea of not legislating things that don't affect everyone doesn't work. It undermines just about everything we have in our society - How? You are misinterpreting my point maybe...anything that effects other people should be legislated, we just have a different idea of what those things are maybe[/i}
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
thats not true, I said that when something I do directly infringes on your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is exactly it. When my behavior infringes on your RIGHTS, not your priviledges, not your entitlements, your rights as dictated by the constitution of the united states. I already said it and I don't think i need to say it again. Because it wasn't directly in response to you, you have assumed I am ignoring you, I am not, I have already said it.
When I steal something from you, it is infringing on those rights, when I don't wear my own seatbelt it is not an infringement upon your rights.
Okay, let's review this again... 1. You said there should not be regulation unless something infringes upon the rights of others. 2. I said that whether or not something infringes on the rights of others is not black and white; there's a huge, debatable, gray area where we have to find balance and make judgements about where to draw the line. I asked where you draw the line. 3. You repeated #1, saying you draw the line at the point where something infringes upon the rights of others.
4. So now I guess I'll repeat #2: It's not obviously clear where the point is at which something infringes upon someone else's rights vs. where no one's rights are infringed upon. This is the part that falls into the gray area and is debatable. Just because you think something infringes upon the rights of others and thinks something else doesn't, doesn't mean that everyone else sees it the same way or that your opinion is necessarily true. You have to more clearly define the point at which you believe this infringement happens. What you have said thusfar is basically meaningless when it comes to answering this question.
Here's another way to put it: You have acted as the Legislative branch and created a law (that no one shall do anything that infringes upon the rights of others). I am asking you to now act as the Judicial branch and interpret how that law should be applied in the real world.
As far as your argument about healthcare costs from kids not wearing helmets...that argument doesn't hold water. First off, I don't think that healthcare is the responibility of government, but that is a different argument all together. So to say it costs the taxpayers money actually goes to further my point that the government needs to get the hell out of everyday lives. It should cost the family, and only the family money and the fact that it doesn't drives me crazy.
How exactly does this argument not hold water? This conversation started, I believe, because you said people were losing their freedom by being made to pay more for healthcare. Here is a clear, factual example of another scenario in which people are being made to pay more for healthcare. How is this NOT, by your own logic, a loss of freedom as well??
And you can't say it's not a loss of freedom because the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for healthcare. (And if you think you can, you'll have to apply that equally to your own example with the healthcare bill as well as my example with the helmets.) That's irrlevant. They ARE paying for it. And they are paying more because people don't wear helmets.
It's not that I can't see your point; I can. But why can't you understand the other side? And why can't you admit that this is a gray area - not a black and white issue where you're necessarily right?
The problem, as I believe I said and you ignored before, is that this is not black and white. There is a huge gray area and it's open to interpretation. It's not obvious where the balance lies. You have been completely unclear about where you draw that line and why, opting instead to just ignore the attempt at balance and make overgeneralizing accusations of a government takeover of your rights.
right, you are entitled to your opinion, I was just giving you MY INTERPRETATION. I was telling you where the balance lies for ME and how I would like it to be. Funny that in a thread starting with trying to understand you simply just want to argue instead of actually try to understand what I am talking about.
I'm not trying to argue with this question. I AM trying to understand - but you're not providing enough information.
How is failing to put your child in a car seat anything but neglect??
I am not saying that all kids should be running around the back of a god damn suv, you are not really following so I am going to just stop talking about it. It is clear to me that short of talking about it in person you aren't going to see what I am trying to say and it seems as though you are deliberately missing the point. It isn't anymore neglect to do that than it is to smoke around kids in the car with the windows up in my mind, but yet one is legal and the other isn't....why the line? Shouldn't we just stay out of it in general. Is it really no more of a risk? I would rather err on the side of not enough regulation than too much. Seems like you would rather go the other way, that is fine, I just happen to disagree.
I know you're not saying all kids should be running around in the back of SUVs. I'm not following what you ARE saying because you're not really answering my questions.
But I think your comments above provide a basis to move forward. You ask why the line where smoking in the car isn't regulated but car seats are, and whether it's really more of a risk.
Well, for one thing, in many places it actually is NOT legal to smoke in cars with kids. I think this further points to the giant gray area.
That aside, as you alluded to, the level of risk is a primary factor in drawing the line with this kind of regulation. And, yes, it is more of a risk for children to ride in cars without car seats than to ride in cars where someone is smoking.
I see your point about the iPhones, but I don't know if you see mine. For one thing, you really have no idea who purchased the phones or pays for the plan. There are plenty of kids who receive phones & coverage as part of their fathers', grandparents', adult siblings', or whoever's plans. I don't think you should judge when you don't really know the facts.
i have ALL their financial information in front of me when I meet with people. Thanks for assuming I have no idea where this stuff comes from. Which is why I said PURCHASED!!!!!!
The fact is this small example is part of the bigger problem for me in that people know they are going to be taken care of so instead of cutting costs where they can to be able afford the things they "need" they buy things like ihones for their kids instead of just going with the phone that comes with the plan. She is free to buy those things for her kids, I am not saying there should be a law against it, I am saying this is a problem with society in general. we think it is our right to live like our neighbors even though we cannot afford it. That is the problem I have with how much government is involved with the daily lives of people.
Do you really have the receipts for the actual iPhone in front of you? Maybe I'm just not understanding what exactly you do. What do you do again?
Also, you ignored my point about how cutting this cost wouldn't enable anyone to pay for medical care or insurance anyway.
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree about the comparison. I find it neither in poor taste and relevant to the original poster's mention.
Well since you're so hell bent on safety - how about this analogy. Everyone who has either health or is forced to get car insurance (because they drive) has a responsibility to act accordingly because your individual actions do effect the group. In a car for example, your driving effects others - and if you don't wear a seat buckle it can effect others. Let's say you get into an accident and it can effect your insurance.. and if you get hurt - where does your coverage come from? Answer - the pool everyone contributes too. Now I know this is a very basic and generalized example, but you singular actions can and do effect the greater whole. In terms of health insurance - it's the same exact premise.
The basic idea of not legislating things that don't affect everyone doesn't work. It undermines just about everything we have in our society - whether it's a federalist state, programs or policies which effect all involved. Perhaps bloated programs and sometimes questionable morality calls, the majority protecting the minority is one of the key facets of our nation - otherwise we'd simply be what we've been slowly crawling towards - oligarchy (two classes -rich and poor).
The state of affairs in Somalia are not comparable to what I am saying at ALL. I understood what he was saying, but to equate the two and bring that into the argument was in poor taste at best, and a gross misunderstanding of what I am talking about at worst... What I was saying before about public health risks and private health risks still holds true. My not wearing protective equipment is not the same as my causing an outbreak of an illness that can severely damage someone ELSE.
I agree that an individual's actions add into the sum of the whole, but things that don't affect the whole should not be legislated. I guess we just disagree as to the extent of those things.
I think one of the biggest problems in this world (and especially in this country) is the general failure to recognize the extent to which the actions of the individual affect the world outside that individual. I agree that people/corporations/whoever should be free to do what they will if it does no harm to anyone/anything else. But we, as a society, have been conditioned to bury our heads in the sand and not see the ways in which our actions affect others. I don't think it's malicious... just ignorant... and we are all "guilty" of it in some way. But as members of a larger group, I believe we have an obligation to do our best to learn how our actions affect others and remove or mitigate harm.
Do i need to go into every situation where something may or may not be legislated in my view?
ultimately that is the line to me. whether you like it or not, that is the answer. measuring the purpose of the law and deciding whether or not it is protecting you from me, or is it protecting me from myself.
what is 2+2
me: it is four
right, but you keep ignoring my question, what is 2+2
me: it is four.
The answer isn't going to change,
I understand why someone would want these laws, just don't agree with it
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Do i need to go into every situation where something may or may not be legislated in my view?
ultimately that is the line to me. whether you like it or not, that is the answer. measuring the purpose of the law and deciding whether or not it is protecting you from me, or is it protecting me from myself.
what is 2+2
me: it is four
right, but you keep ignoring my question, what is 2+2
me: it is four.
The answer isn't going to change,
I understand why someone would want these laws, just don't agree with it
It's more like this:
Me: What is 2+2?
You: It's 2+2.
Me: Yeah, but what IS 2+2?
You: It's 2+2 and the answer isn't going to change.
How is failing to put your child in a car seat anything but neglect??
I am not saying that all kids should be running around the back of a god damn suv, you are not really following so I am going to just stop talking about it. It is clear to me that short of talking about it in person you aren't going to see what I am trying to say and it seems as though you are deliberately missing the point. It isn't anymore neglect to do that than it is to smoke around kids in the car with the windows up in my mind, but yet one is legal and the other isn't....why the line? Shouldn't we just stay out of it in general. Is it really no more of a risk? I would rather err on the side of not enough regulation than too much. Seems like you would rather go the other way, that is fine, I just happen to disagree.
I know you're not saying all kids should be running around in the back of SUVs. I'm not following what you ARE saying because you're not really answering my questions.
But I think your comments above provide a basis to move forward. You ask why the line where smoking in the car isn't regulated but car seats are, and whether it's really more of a risk.
Well, for one thing, in many places it actually is NOT legal to smoke in cars with kids. I think this further points to the giant gray area.
That aside, as you alluded to, the level of risk is a primary factor in drawing the line with this kind of regulation. And, yes, it is more of a risk for children to ride in cars without car seats than to ride in cars where someone is smoking.
I see your point about the iPhones, but I don't know if you see mine. For one thing, you really have no idea who purchased the phones or pays for the plan. There are plenty of kids who receive phones & coverage as part of their fathers', grandparents', adult siblings', or whoever's plans. I don't think you should judge when you don't really know the facts.
i have ALL their financial information in front of me when I meet with people. Thanks for assuming I have no idea where this stuff comes from. Which is why I said PURCHASED!!!!!!
The fact is this small example is part of the bigger problem for me in that people know they are going to be taken care of so instead of cutting costs where they can to be able afford the things they "need" they buy things like ihones for their kids instead of just going with the phone that comes with the plan. She is free to buy those things for her kids, I am not saying there should be a law against it, I am saying this is a problem with society in general. we think it is our right to live like our neighbors even though we cannot afford it. That is the problem I have with how much government is involved with the daily lives of people.
Do you really have the receipts for the actual iPhone in front of you? Maybe I'm just not understanding what exactly you do. What do you do again?
Also, you ignored my point about how cutting this cost wouldn't enable anyone to pay for medical care or insurance anyway.
I work in the public health department. when people use our services they need to go through eligibility screening. So I am privy to a lot of financial information on some of our clients,
cutting all costs is important, and yes, by cutting costs in unnecessary areas one is able to begin to afford the things they need. Does the phone = healthcare, no but irresponsible spending only puts you further in debt and never allows you to afford those things.
you wrote
It's more like this:
Me: What is 2+2?
You: It's 2+2.
Me: Yeah, but what IS 2+2?
You: It's 2+2 and the answer isn't going to change.
no that isnt it....the answer is the LINE IS DRAWN AT THE POINT WHERE MY ACTIONS BEGIN TO INFRINGE ON YOUR RIGHTS...I don't know what else you want, do I have the answer for every situation ... no, but I think putting every law through that test will begin to show you where I stand. Many laws are made under the guise of the greater good, but I just don't think that is a fair test
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Do i need to go into every situation where something may or may not be legislated in my view?
Of course not. But HOW do you determine that your right to not wear a helmet is greater than my right to not pay more in healthcare costs for the resulting head injuries? And do you see how it's not black and white?
I work in the public health department. when people use our services they need to go through eligibility screening. So I am privy to a lot of financial information on some of our clients
I was just wondering. Because part of my job is that I'm a Medicaid determiner, and I've never had to see anyone's receipts for phones they've purchased. But maybe in your state people must submit receipts for all their assets, including their phones, to determine whether they're eligible to use public health services or something.
You: It's 2+2 and the answer isn't going to change.
no that isnt it....the answer is the LINE IS DRAWN AT THE POINT WHERE MY ACTIONS BEGIN TO INFRINGE ON YOUR RIGHTS...I don't know what else you want, do I have the answer for every situation ... no, but I think putting every law through that test will begin to show you where I stand. Many laws are made under the guise of the greater good, but I just don't think that is a fair test
How about this one?
Me: What is 2(2+2)+2?
You: It's 10.
Me: What steps did you use to get your answer?
You: I already told you, the answer is 10.
(Although this math analogy isn't really good, because we're talking about something subjective.)
What do you do when regulation would infringe upon someone's rights but inaction would infringe upon someone else's rights? Do you agree that it's not always as simple as: Option A - Someone's rights are infringed upon, or Option B - No one's rights are infringed upon?
Poll: Most Tea Party Supporters Say Their Taxes Are Fair
As Tea Partiers gather for today's rally in Boston, home of the original Tea Party protest in 1773, 42 percent of Tea Party supporters think the amount of income taxes they'll pay this year is unfair, according to a new CBS News/ New York Times poll.
Yet while some say the Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already," most Tea Party supporters - 52 percent - say their taxes are fair, the poll shows. Just under one in five Americans say they support the Tea Party movement.
However, those most active in the Tea Party are less satisfied with the amount of income taxes they will pay. Fifty-five percent of Tea Party activists - those who have attended a rally or donated money - (about 4 percent of Americans overall) say their income taxes are unfair.
Americans overall are more likely than Tea Partiers to describe the income taxes they'll pay this year as fair - 62 percent do, according to the poll, conducted April 5 - 12.
Majorities across all income levels say their income taxes are fair, as do most Republicans and Democrats.
Exactly - the notion of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" can be construed to mean any and everything... so for anyone to make blanket statements about such a thing is pretty much complaining it's not being done to their particular, singular opinion on issues and matters.
See OP, four more pages of comments from mikepegg44 to show the lack of logic from the teabaggers.
Your not wearing a seatbelt makes me unhappy, thus you are infringing upon my right to the pursuit of happiness.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Exactly - the notion of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" can be construed to mean any and everything... so for anyone to make blanket statements about such a thing is pretty much complaining it's not being done to their particular, singular opinion on issues and matters.
See OP, four more pages of comments from mikepegg44 to show the lack of logic from the teabaggers.
Your not wearing a seatbelt makes me unhappy, thus you are infringing upon my right to the pursuit of happiness.
Yep, great argument...The notion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does mean a lot to a lot of people, I was just showing what it means to me, if you guys disagree that is fine. . .let them control you,
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean their ideas are illogical, that is a very elitest point of view and frankly sad. teabaggers are everyday people who are demonized by the left as being crazy irrational gun toting revolutionists, most aren't, but believe what you want.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Exactly - the notion of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" can be construed to mean any and everything... so for anyone to make blanket statements about such a thing is pretty much complaining it's not being done to their particular, singular opinion on issues and matters.
See OP, four more pages of comments from mikepegg44 to show the lack of logic from the teabaggers.
Your not wearing a seatbelt makes me unhappy, thus you are infringing upon my right to the pursuit of happiness.
Yep, great argument...The notion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does mean a lot to a lot of people, I was just showing what it means to me, if you guys disagree that is fine. . .let them control you,
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean their ideas are illogical, that is a very elitest point of view and frankly sad. teabaggers are everyday people who are demonized by the left as being crazy irrational gun toting revolutionists, most aren't, but believe what you want.
"let them control you"...I guess if following laws is "letting them control me", then fine...as I mentioned recently, it's funny how suddenly folks are a bunch of anarchists....
I do find it ironic that you complain about the someone who disagrees with you has having a "elitist point of view"...I guess that makes you an elitist...you know, since we disagree....and that makes me sad...
No one is saying you're not entitled to your viewpoint and opinion, but the section I highlighted in bold which you seem to so casually say is insulting. I know some, myself not included, do generalize or demonize the other side - in this case about tea party movement... but you seem to ignore that's exactly what you're doing by saying the "let them control you" comment. You're generalizing and grouping people together who don't agree with you as sheep or in some fashion, something along those lines. Pretty lame cop-out compared to actually discussing the issue at hand. Simply because some disagree on the interpretation of the government infringement on some topics, doesn't mean they're controlled. Many have given some examples, you simply disagree.
Yep, great argument...The notion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does mean a lot to a lot of people, I was just showing what it means to me, if you guys disagree that is fine. . .let them control you,
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean their ideas are illogical, that is a very elitest point of view and frankly sad. teabaggers are everyday people who are demonized by the left as being crazy irrational gun toting revolutionists, most aren't, but believe what you want.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Do i need to go into every situation where something may or may not be legislated in my view?
Of course not. But HOW do you determine that your right to not wear a helmet is greater than my right to not pay more in healthcare costs for the resulting head injuries? And do you see how it's not black and white?
with a sack of bones and a lite-brite, that is HOW I do it
maybe we should move this to PM, feel free to hit me up, I will continue on this all day with you, I am starting to think that we are both doing the same thing here...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"let them control you"...I guess if following laws is "letting them control me", then fine...as I mentioned recently, it's funny how suddenly folks are a bunch of anarchists....
I do find it ironic that you complain about the someone who disagrees with you has having a "elitist point of view"...I guess that makes you an elitist...you know, since we disagree....and that makes me sad...
you are right, that comment was said in anger and not really fair to people.
I really do think that the laws are well-meaning, but just believe that they really don't do much in terms of their overall goal. If your idea is that a seatbelt will lower costs to everyone, that doesn't really fly with me as an argument and I will PM you all day on it, if the argument is that it saves lives, I will agree seatbelts save lives, but if someone is too stupid to wear their seatbelt that is their problem, I shouldn't be at risk for a $50 - 100 dollar tickets because of it.
And it isn't elitist to disagree, it is in the tone with which it has been done by most...To denegrate someone for believing in God, believing in a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment, who don't like the direction the country is going seems silly and elitist(for lack of a better term). I have no problem with a legitimate disagreement, but the implication has been that I am stupid, illogical, or just unable to conprehend what people like SCB has been saying, and that isn't the case, I just disagree with the claims.
maybe it is just me getting a little too worked up, but I don't think so, I get the impression from a SHIT LOAD of people on this forum that the tea party is looked down on, as are most anyone in the republican party as selfish rednecks who love shooting things...
also, I am not an anarchist, just don't believe some laws are necessary.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"let them control you"...I guess if following laws is "letting them control me", then fine...as I mentioned recently, it's funny how suddenly folks are a bunch of anarchists....
I do find it ironic that you complain about the someone who disagrees with you has having a "elitist point of view"...I guess that makes you an elitist...you know, since we disagree....and that makes me sad...
you are right, that comment was said in anger and not really fair to people.
I really do think that the laws are well-meaning, but just believe that they really don't do much in terms of their overall goal. If your idea is that a seatbelt will lower costs to everyone, that doesn't really fly with me as an argument and I will PM you all day on it, if the argument is that it saves lives, I will agree seatbelts save lives, but if someone is too stupid to wear their seatbelt that is their problem, I shouldn't be at risk for a $50 - 100 dollar tickets because of it.
And it isn't elitist to disagree, it is in the tone with which it has been done by most...To denegrate someone for believing in God, believing in a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment, who don't like the direction the country is going seems silly and elitist(for lack of a better term). I have no problem with a legitimate disagreement, but the implication has been that I am stupid, illogical, or just unable to conprehend what people like SCB has been saying, and that isn't the case, I just disagree with the claims.
maybe it is just me getting a little too worked up, but I don't think so, I get the impression from a SHIT LOAD of people on this forum that the tea party is looked down on, as are most anyone in the republican party as selfish rednecks who love shooting things...
also, I am not an anarchist, just don't believe some laws are necessary.
You know, I'm pretty sure we are on the same page here...I agree with lots of things you are saying here...I agree that there are lots and lots and lots of stupid laws...this year NC made it illegal to text and drive...Do I think it's a good idea to outlaw this...yes! Can it be enforced...no...how the heck is a cop going to be able to tell if someone is dialing a phone or texting...?
and don't let this place rile you up...this flat medium makes it hard to read folks...
as for folks not taking teabaggers seriously...I am guilty as charged...
"let them control you"...I guess if following laws is "letting them control me", then fine...as I mentioned recently, it's funny how suddenly folks are a bunch of anarchists....
I do find it ironic that you complain about the someone who disagrees with you has having a "elitist point of view"...I guess that makes you an elitist...you know, since we disagree....and that makes me sad...
you are right, that comment was said in anger and not really fair to people.
I really do think that the laws are well-meaning, but just believe that they really don't do much in terms of their overall goal. If your idea is that a seatbelt will lower costs to everyone, that doesn't really fly with me as an argument and I will PM you all day on it, if the argument is that it saves lives, I will agree seatbelts save lives, but if someone is too stupid to wear their seatbelt that is their problem, I shouldn't be at risk for a $50 - 100 dollar tickets because of it.
And it isn't elitist to disagree, it is in the tone with which it has been done by most...To denegrate someone for believing in God, believing in a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment, who don't like the direction the country is going seems silly and elitist(for lack of a better term). I have no problem with a legitimate disagreement, but the implication has been that I am stupid, illogical, or just unable to conprehend what people like SCB has been saying, and that isn't the case, I just disagree with the claims.
maybe it is just me getting a little too worked up, but I don't think so, I get the impression from a SHIT LOAD of people on this forum that the tea party is looked down on, as are most anyone in the republican party as selfish rednecks who love shooting things...
also, I am not an anarchist, just don't believe some laws are necessary.
You know, I'm pretty sure we are on the same page here...I agree with lots of things you are saying here...I agree that there are lots and lots and lots of stupid laws...this year NC made it illegal to text and drive...Do I think it's a good idea to outlaw this...yes! Can it be enforced...no...how the heck is a cop going to be able to tell if someone is dialing a phone or texting...?
and don't let this place rile you up...this flat medium makes it hard to read folks...
as for folks not taking teabaggers seriously...I am guilty as charged...
It is sad that the vocal minority have jaded so many people about a movement that really does make sense at its core. It is just too bad that Palin had to get involved. . .
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It is sad that the vocal minority have jaded so many people about a movement that really does make sense at its core. It is just too bad that Palin had to get involved. . .
I'll be quite honest, it's more that Palin that sours me on the movement...It started with the shouting down of folks at town hall meetings and went downhill from there...
And this summarizes why a legitimate, long last 3rd party alternative has never formed in the US. Except for the Palin part -she's just a ding-bat with catch phrases and no substance.
It is sad that the vocal minority have jaded so many people about a movement that really does make sense at its core. It is just too bad that Palin had to get involved. . .
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
It is sad that the vocal minority have jaded so many people about a movement that really does make sense at its core. It is just too bad that Palin had to get involved. . .
I'll be quite honest, it's more that Palin that sours me on the movement...It started with the shouting down of folks at town hall meetings and went downhill from there...
the really funny thing is, that I firmly believe that she does more harm than good, and if she was truly for the movement and not herself she would step away from it so that those that hate her don't judge the movement. Kind of show how selfish a person she really is.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
In my day parents smoked in the house,
we rode in the back of pickup trucks,
we rode in the back of station wagons (can you imagine a rear end collision?)
there were no car seats
We did not wear helmets
we ate bacon
lots’ of hot dogs and
sugar
...and guess what? Most of us are still here,( baby boomers)...........
AND SERIOUSLY... what is up with these CHILD LABOR LAWS?!?!?!
Damn moochers eating cheese bought with WIC vouchers and drinking juice purchased using god damn food stamps... living in Section 8 housing and buying toothpaste with TANF money when their lazy little asses should be out there WORKING!!!!!!!
Certainly a five year old can do LIGHT factory work, conveyor belt kind of shit, right? Farm work... Answering phones... various cutting and pasting positions... And a twelve year old... well shit... the job market is wide open!!
HELL!! In many other countries they do it... It was the way for many years in this country and look what a great super power we are now! AND let's be real... if their lazy little asses had jobs... guess what? WE *PROBABLY* WOULDN'T HAVE 40 MILLION UNINSURED CHILDREN IN THE COUNTRY!!!!
Aerial you are quite the critical thinker!!! *KUDOS*
In my day parents smoked in the house,
we rode in the back of pickup trucks,
we rode in the back of station wagons (can you imagine a rear end collision?)
there were no car seats
We did not wear helmets
we ate bacon
lots’ of hot dogs and
sugar
...and guess what? Most of us are still here,( baby boomers)...........
AND SERIOUSLY... what is up with these CHILD LABOR LAWS?!?!?!
Damn moochers eating cheese bought with WIC vouchers and drinking juice purchased using god damn food stamps... living in Section 8 housing and buying toothpaste with TANF money when their lazy little asses should be out there WORKING!!!!!!!
Certainly a five year old can do LIGHT factory work, conveyor belt kind of shit, right? Farm work... Answering phones... various cutting and pasting positions... And a twelve year old... well shit... the job market is wide open!!
HELL!! In many other countries they do it... It was the way for many years in this country and look what a great super power we are now! AND let's be real... if their lazy little asses had jobs... guess what? WE *PROBABLY* WOULDN'T HAVE 40 MILLION UNINSURED CHILDREN IN THE COUNTRY!!!!
Aerial you are quite the critical thinker!!! *KUDOS*
In my grandmother's day, elementary school kids were pulled out of school to pick cotton... and guess what? Most of them are still here! Many of them can't read or write. Some of them are missing limbs from farming accidents. But they're still here, damnit! Nothing wrong with a little hard work! What the hell is wrong with kids these days - and the damn government that infringes on their parents' rights to put them to work just so they can get an education and enter adulthood with all their fingers? Wussies!!
Comments
A very simple example which not to get into a side debate at all about this subject matter but, when kids don't get vaccines because their parents are afraid for reason x or y. Then at some point one of these kids get sick and an outbreak starts and effect everyone.
Lastly, people don't leave war-ridden, impoverished nations because it's a great place. They obviously love their home, culture and all that goes with it, but the original poster and my comments were directed at the state of affairs - not the people and that's a clear distinction you seemed to miss.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The state of affairs in Somalia are not comparable to what I am saying at ALL. I understood what he was saying, but to equate the two and bring that into the argument was in poor taste at best, and a gross misunderstanding of what I am talking about at worst... What I was saying before about public health risks and private health risks still holds true. My not wearing protective equipment is not the same as my causing an outbreak of an illness that can severely damage someone ELSE.
I agree that an individual's actions add into the sum of the whole, but things that don't affect the whole should not be legislated. I guess we just disagree as to the extent of those things.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Well since you're so hell bent on safety - how about this analogy. Everyone who has either health or is forced to get car insurance (because they drive) has a responsibility to act accordingly because your individual actions do effect the group. In a car for example, your driving effects others - and if you don't wear a seat buckle it can effect others. Let's say you get into an accident and it can effect your insurance.. and if you get hurt - where does your coverage come from? Answer - the pool everyone contributes too. Now I know this is a very basic and generalized example, but you singular actions can and do effect the greater whole. In terms of health insurance - it's the same exact premise.
The basic idea of not legislating things that don't affect everyone doesn't work. It undermines just about everything we have in our society - whether it's a federalist state, programs or policies which effect all involved. Perhaps bloated programs and sometimes questionable morality calls, the majority protecting the minority is one of the key facets of our nation - otherwise we'd simply be what we've been slowly crawling towards - oligarchy (two classes -rich and poor).
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
In terms of the car insurance example - your car insurance isn't merely coverage for you in the simplest terms, your premiums (if unused) go to the pool which pay out others in need. That's how insurance works. So if everyone draws out of the pool, the insurance company is screwed and everyone's premiums go up...and this is one of the many of the reasons we see health insurance so f'ed up.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Okay, let's review this again... 1. You said there should not be regulation unless something infringes upon the rights of others. 2. I said that whether or not something infringes on the rights of others is not black and white; there's a huge, debatable, gray area where we have to find balance and make judgements about where to draw the line. I asked where you draw the line. 3. You repeated #1, saying you draw the line at the point where something infringes upon the rights of others.
4. So now I guess I'll repeat #2: It's not obviously clear where the point is at which something infringes upon someone else's rights vs. where no one's rights are infringed upon. This is the part that falls into the gray area and is debatable. Just because you think something infringes upon the rights of others and thinks something else doesn't, doesn't mean that everyone else sees it the same way or that your opinion is necessarily true. You have to more clearly define the point at which you believe this infringement happens. What you have said thusfar is basically meaningless when it comes to answering this question.
Here's another way to put it: You have acted as the Legislative branch and created a law (that no one shall do anything that infringes upon the rights of others). I am asking you to now act as the Judicial branch and interpret how that law should be applied in the real world.
How exactly does this argument not hold water? This conversation started, I believe, because you said people were losing their freedom by being made to pay more for healthcare. Here is a clear, factual example of another scenario in which people are being made to pay more for healthcare. How is this NOT, by your own logic, a loss of freedom as well??
And you can't say it's not a loss of freedom because the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for healthcare. (And if you think you can, you'll have to apply that equally to your own example with the healthcare bill as well as my example with the helmets.) That's irrlevant. They ARE paying for it. And they are paying more because people don't wear helmets.
It's not that I can't see your point; I can. But why can't you understand the other side? And why can't you admit that this is a gray area - not a black and white issue where you're necessarily right?
I'm not trying to argue with this question. I AM trying to understand - but you're not providing enough information.
I know you're not saying all kids should be running around in the back of SUVs. I'm not following what you ARE saying because you're not really answering my questions.
But I think your comments above provide a basis to move forward. You ask why the line where smoking in the car isn't regulated but car seats are, and whether it's really more of a risk.
Well, for one thing, in many places it actually is NOT legal to smoke in cars with kids. I think this further points to the giant gray area.
That aside, as you alluded to, the level of risk is a primary factor in drawing the line with this kind of regulation. And, yes, it is more of a risk for children to ride in cars without car seats than to ride in cars where someone is smoking.
Do you really have the receipts for the actual iPhone in front of you? Maybe I'm just not understanding what exactly you do. What do you do again?
Also, you ignored my point about how cutting this cost wouldn't enable anyone to pay for medical care or insurance anyway.
I think one of the biggest problems in this world (and especially in this country) is the general failure to recognize the extent to which the actions of the individual affect the world outside that individual. I agree that people/corporations/whoever should be free to do what they will if it does no harm to anyone/anything else. But we, as a society, have been conditioned to bury our heads in the sand and not see the ways in which our actions affect others. I don't think it's malicious... just ignorant... and we are all "guilty" of it in some way. But as members of a larger group, I believe we have an obligation to do our best to learn how our actions affect others and remove or mitigate harm.
Do i need to go into every situation where something may or may not be legislated in my view?
ultimately that is the line to me. whether you like it or not, that is the answer. measuring the purpose of the law and deciding whether or not it is protecting you from me, or is it protecting me from myself.
what is 2+2
me: it is four
right, but you keep ignoring my question, what is 2+2
me: it is four.
The answer isn't going to change,
I understand why someone would want these laws, just don't agree with it
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It's more like this:
Me: What is 2+2?
You: It's 2+2.
Me: Yeah, but what IS 2+2?
You: It's 2+2 and the answer isn't going to change.
I work in the public health department. when people use our services they need to go through eligibility screening. So I am privy to a lot of financial information on some of our clients,
cutting all costs is important, and yes, by cutting costs in unnecessary areas one is able to begin to afford the things they need. Does the phone = healthcare, no but irresponsible spending only puts you further in debt and never allows you to afford those things.
you wrote
It's more like this:
Me: What is 2+2?
You: It's 2+2.
Me: Yeah, but what IS 2+2?
You: It's 2+2 and the answer isn't going to change.
no that isnt it....the answer is the LINE IS DRAWN AT THE POINT WHERE MY ACTIONS BEGIN TO INFRINGE ON YOUR RIGHTS...I don't know what else you want, do I have the answer for every situation ... no, but I think putting every law through that test will begin to show you where I stand. Many laws are made under the guise of the greater good, but I just don't think that is a fair test
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Of course not. But HOW do you determine that your right to not wear a helmet is greater than my right to not pay more in healthcare costs for the resulting head injuries? And do you see how it's not black and white?
I was just wondering. Because part of my job is that I'm a Medicaid determiner, and I've never had to see anyone's receipts for phones they've purchased. But maybe in your state people must submit receipts for all their assets, including their phones, to determine whether they're eligible to use public health services or something.
How about this one?
Me: What is 2(2+2)+2?
You: It's 10.
Me: What steps did you use to get your answer?
You: I already told you, the answer is 10.
(Although this math analogy isn't really good, because we're talking about something subjective.)
What do you do when regulation would infringe upon someone's rights but inaction would infringe upon someone else's rights? Do you agree that it's not always as simple as: Option A - Someone's rights are infringed upon, or Option B - No one's rights are infringed upon?
Poll: Most Tea Party Supporters Say Their Taxes Are Fair
As Tea Partiers gather for today's rally in Boston, home of the original Tea Party protest in 1773, 42 percent of Tea Party supporters think the amount of income taxes they'll pay this year is unfair, according to a new CBS News/ New York Times poll.
Yet while some say the Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already," most Tea Party supporters - 52 percent - say their taxes are fair, the poll shows. Just under one in five Americans say they support the Tea Party movement.
However, those most active in the Tea Party are less satisfied with the amount of income taxes they will pay. Fifty-five percent of Tea Party activists - those who have attended a rally or donated money - (about 4 percent of Americans overall) say their income taxes are unfair.
Americans overall are more likely than Tea Partiers to describe the income taxes they'll pay this year as fair - 62 percent do, according to the poll, conducted April 5 - 12.
Majorities across all income levels say their income taxes are fair, as do most Republicans and Democrats.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html
Your not wearing a seatbelt makes me unhappy, thus you are infringing upon my right to the pursuit of happiness.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Yep, great argument...The notion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does mean a lot to a lot of people, I was just showing what it means to me, if you guys disagree that is fine. . .let them control you,
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean their ideas are illogical, that is a very elitest point of view and frankly sad. teabaggers are everyday people who are demonized by the left as being crazy irrational gun toting revolutionists, most aren't, but believe what you want.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"let them control you"...I guess if following laws is "letting them control me", then fine...as I mentioned recently, it's funny how suddenly folks are a bunch of anarchists....
I do find it ironic that you complain about the someone who disagrees with you has having a "elitist point of view"...I guess that makes you an elitist...you know, since we disagree....and that makes me sad...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
with a sack of bones and a lite-brite, that is HOW I do it
maybe we should move this to PM, feel free to hit me up, I will continue on this all day with you, I am starting to think that we are both doing the same thing here...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you are right, that comment was said in anger and not really fair to people.
I really do think that the laws are well-meaning, but just believe that they really don't do much in terms of their overall goal. If your idea is that a seatbelt will lower costs to everyone, that doesn't really fly with me as an argument and I will PM you all day on it, if the argument is that it saves lives, I will agree seatbelts save lives, but if someone is too stupid to wear their seatbelt that is their problem, I shouldn't be at risk for a $50 - 100 dollar tickets because of it.
And it isn't elitist to disagree, it is in the tone with which it has been done by most...To denegrate someone for believing in God, believing in a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment, who don't like the direction the country is going seems silly and elitist(for lack of a better term). I have no problem with a legitimate disagreement, but the implication has been that I am stupid, illogical, or just unable to conprehend what people like SCB has been saying, and that isn't the case, I just disagree with the claims.
maybe it is just me getting a little too worked up, but I don't think so, I get the impression from a SHIT LOAD of people on this forum that the tea party is looked down on, as are most anyone in the republican party as selfish rednecks who love shooting things...
also, I am not an anarchist, just don't believe some laws are necessary.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You know, I'm pretty sure we are on the same page here...I agree with lots of things you are saying here...I agree that there are lots and lots and lots of stupid laws...this year NC made it illegal to text and drive...Do I think it's a good idea to outlaw this...yes! Can it be enforced...no...how the heck is a cop going to be able to tell if someone is dialing a phone or texting...?
and don't let this place rile you up...this flat medium makes it hard to read folks...
as for folks not taking teabaggers seriously...I am guilty as charged...
It is sad that the vocal minority have jaded so many people about a movement that really does make sense at its core. It is just too bad that Palin had to get involved. . .
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'll be quite honest, it's more that Palin that sours me on the movement...It started with the shouting down of folks at town hall meetings and went downhill from there...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
the really funny thing is, that I firmly believe that she does more harm than good, and if she was truly for the movement and not herself she would step away from it so that those that hate her don't judge the movement. Kind of show how selfish a person she really is.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
AND SERIOUSLY... what is up with these CHILD LABOR LAWS?!?!?!
Damn moochers eating cheese bought with WIC vouchers and drinking juice purchased using god damn food stamps... living in Section 8 housing and buying toothpaste with TANF money when their lazy little asses should be out there WORKING!!!!!!!
Certainly a five year old can do LIGHT factory work, conveyor belt kind of shit, right? Farm work... Answering phones... various cutting and pasting positions... And a twelve year old... well shit... the job market is wide open!!
HELL!! In many other countries they do it... It was the way for many years in this country and look what a great super power we are now! AND let's be real... if their lazy little asses had jobs... guess what? WE *PROBABLY* WOULDN'T HAVE 40 MILLION UNINSURED CHILDREN IN THE COUNTRY!!!!
Aerial you are quite the critical thinker!!! *KUDOS*
In my grandmother's day, elementary school kids were pulled out of school to pick cotton... and guess what? Most of them are still here! Many of them can't read or write. Some of them are missing limbs from farming accidents. But they're still here, damnit! Nothing wrong with a little hard work! What the hell is wrong with kids these days - and the damn government that infringes on their parents' rights to put them to work just so they can get an education and enter adulthood with all their fingers? Wussies!!