ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

Everything in the last few posts has had holes poked in it repeatedly, yet it's being fervently offered up once again as the Gospel Truth.

Comes a time when there's no point in saying anything beyond, 'read the thread, dude. It's all been addressed before, and there's no point in rehashing it just because you haven't read it.....'

 

That's why I just throw rocks from the sidelines now. It's a religious argument in essence and neither side is going to let inconvenient facts change their minds.

Crack another beer and re-stock on the rock supply, I say.....

PDW

 

Small government is difficult for any group or person to wield as control over others. It's small. Massive government attracts ego maniacs to take control.
The eco movement was taken over by the socialists and is their agenda for even more government and more control, with them at the helm.

Freedom is not a silly word. Nor a silly idea. And ours is under attack.

 

The US has over 300 million people, and covers almost 4 million square miles. So the simple reality is that any federal government at all is going to be a massive one.

Federal government should theoretically provide or oversee only those services and direction that affect the country as a whole, such as interstate commerce and national defense. As much discretion as possible should be given the individual states to manage their own affairs, and in turn the states should allow local governments that same discretion. 'Conservative' American politicians pay that notion a great deal of lip service, but tend to ignore it in real life.

One very good example: for years, conservatives called for the elimination of the Department of Education, arguing that state and local governments need flexibility to deal with their own unique educational situations. Then they did a complete turnaround and nationalized educational standards and procedures, by passing the No Child Left Behind Act.

Similarly, numerous Constitutional amendments are proposed in Congress every year, most of them by politicians who self-identify as conservatives. These include gems like prohibiting 'desecration' of the American flag, forbidding states to allow same-sex marriage, outlawing abortion nationwide and allowing official prayers in school. As of April of this year, various Republicans in the latest Congress had proposed 51 Congrsssional Amendments.

One of my favorites: in 2010 Rep. Paul Broun (R, Georgia) proposed a constitutional amendment to allow castration of child rapists. Yep, that would be the same Paul Broun who sits on the Science and Technology Committee, and believes "evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are lies straight from the pit of Hell."

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hj82/show

 

You....

 

Kudos.

 

I think El_Guero addressed it pretty well.

 

Thank you Hoyt!

After some unsavory emails, I had to block someone. The good thing, I can't unblock him .... The wonders of technology.

Now, if we could only clean up the environment as easily. Just flip a switch and turn off the gross polluters.

Wayne

 

De nada.

 

I would think that the opposite is true. Small governments are FAR more easy for a small group, or even a person, to take control of. It seems to me that large governments are much harder to control. Lots of people and departments going off on different tangents.

But I agree with Troy that a large country will, necessarily, result in a large government. The best we can work towards is to also make that large government responsive and efficient -- hard work indeed.

 

He's talking about me. But there was nothing "unsavory" about my PM's.... I'll cheerfully send copies of our exchange to the moderator, or to anyone else who's curious. Wayne seems to have the not uncommon notion that free speech is a one-way street, and no one has the right to disagree with him when he starts riding his political hobby horse.

I didn't like that attitude from the left in the sixties, and I don't like it any better from the right today.

And although I doubt he wants to do so and risk having to read actual facts and reasoning, it's as easy to take someone off <Ignore> as it is to add them to it. Read the FAQ's.

 

i,

America was a big country 100 years ago. Size does not lead to big government until someone tries to control it.

In a dictatorship, small government might be bad, but every dictatorship I am aware of wanted more government not less.

Look to Chavez in Venezuela.

We can only hope the over-spending has run its course and will force government to shrink. Ironically, that might have been Obama's intention on spending so much money. At least that would make political sense. But, trying to understand politicians is like trying to foretell the future. Even a broke clock gets it right once or twice a day, but, a big but, you will seldom know when you finally figured out why they are doing things.

More ironically, Geithner would know that overspending on welfare would purposely force an economic cliff. He would excessive borrowing would force a huge welfare cut for the near to long term.

That is what they all recommend for the EU. Look at what they did to social security and welfare in Greece? So, why would they think it would be different in the USA?

Wayne

 

I'm always amused when people start talking about the need to keep things local to avoid corruption. You haven't seen corruption, until you've seen it in action in a small town or rural area. For example, Arizona ranchers and farmers could give New Jersey mobsters lessons.

A few years ago a rancher was convicted of rustling cattle from his own daughter, among other victims. After a lot of blather about what a good citizen and wonderful asset to Arizona he had always been, he was given a suspended sentence -- on the condition that he throw a big public barbeque at his own expense. But I've always wondered whether it was his cows or rustled cows he slaughtered....

And of course his foreman, who had been working under his direct orders, was sent away for years.

 

The population of the US is about three and a half times what it was a hundred years ago. Not to mention that we're living in a much more complex world.

I don't think we really want to go back to the days when milk killed 10% of New York City's children every year, because there were no laws to regulate its safety. Nor would I want to fly with an airline that wasn't in compliance with the FAA's regulations, or at least trying to be.

I would just as soon have the FDA keep requiring that medical drugs be tested for effectiveness and safety; I'm obviously in no position to conduct that sort of research and testing myself before I pick up a prescription, or sort through the advertizing, misrepresentations and downright lies of the drug industry.

How many lives have tornado warnings and hurricane warnings saved over the years? Enough to justify the tax money spent on them, I'd warrant.

I have nothing against Social Security at all; I think it beats having retirees buying cans of horse meat or chicken in the pet aisle, because they can't afford meat at the butcher counter. Is it really so horrible that they had to pay into the system that's giving them that opportunity?

So on and so forth. People who dream of shrinking the government back down to the size and functions of a hundred years ago, or even farther back, have a tenuous grasp on reality.

 

Science Daily -- Will Climate Change Cause Water Conflict?