Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:12:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
896 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
>
> > Ok, I was refering to the operation of the Government, not the social changes
> > that occured between now and then despite the government's best efforts to • the
> > contrary. See maybe we have a slight difference of opinion here. I see the
> > Government, not as the people who will fix things for us, but the cause of
> > most of the problems.
>
> You may freely assert that point, but you must also document it, and you
> should also document how things would have been better without government
> intervention. The examples I gave:
>
> > the same time period in which civil rights were non-existent,
Which resolved regardless of the the attempts to stop it.
> > Presidents could
> > serve an unlimited number of terms,
So? That is why we have an election.
> > the securities industry was wholly (and
> > tragically) unregulated,
So? Who's fault is it if they lose everything gambling on the securities
industry.
> > women were all but chained to their stoves,
Also resolved despite efforts to the contrary.
> > the military draft was in full effect,
Like it would be again if neccessary.
> > the environment was freely polluted by
> > unmonitored industry,
So? Industry is self correcting. If no one buys a product because that company
pollutes they wouldn't do it would they.
> > the interstate freeway system didn't exist,
Yeah Ford, Chevy, and Lincoln did some good lobbying for that. Nevermind they
also paid to rip out most of the rail lines.
> > poll taxes were in effect,
Its a wonder no politicians were shot over that.
> > alcohol was illegal,
Yeah that worked about as good as the war on drugs.
> > rural electrical service didn't exist,
So? Our reliance on a centralized power grid is a weakness not a strength.
> > and the FDIC hadn't yet come into being?
And it has been screwing with the economy ever since.
>
> are not social changes (with the exception of the women/stoves bit) but
> are in fact direct, positive results of government programs. Social
> security, though a favorite target of conservatives, has also been a
> tremendously successful program (in terms of its original intent, rather
> than its current use).
> If you're going to assert that these are mere social changes that took
> place "despite the government's best efforts to the contrary," then you
> really need to demonstrate how the government tried to stop these from
> occurring, and how they failed to do so.
> Additionally, it's tough for me to respond to your arguments if you don't
> cite the post that preceded yours!
>
> Dave!
See this is my viewpoint. People are responsible for their own actions, and
should be held accountable for them.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
