or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by SpcMs

well, I don't post often here, but for once I can agree with FloorJack so I'm happy to come out of lurking for that. Yay! for nuclear. (Oh, and Yay! for Obama on everything except nuclear).
Somehow I think the name Arnold Hitler Schwarzenegger would have been a bigger problem for the Gubernator rather than the actual ties to Nazism of his father...
Even if it is the laziest, most trite hyperbole in the history of the gun control debate, that does not diminish its validity. Good to hear that "machine gun" ownership is restricted, but where in the second amendment do they make the distinction between hand guns, semi's, machine guns, or my lazy trite hyperbole of an atomic bomb? Glad to hear all your enthousiasm for the constitution, and rightfully so, but it's obviously open to interpretation and is more often than...
Well, I'll have to admit that I'm not all too familiar with the US traditions of 'making' law and checking it against the constitution, however, none (or very few) who are debating this are in favor or against the right to bear arms because it is mentioned in the second amendment. The second amendment may have historical value, but the interpretation of it in this day and age is clearly a matter of policy, and not of law.
So according to all you pro gunners I have the right to have an atomic bomb laying around in my cellar (to take it to the extreme), because hey, it's my individual right to bear arms? Btw, the whole second amendment debate is a bit of a cop out (as is roe vs. wade). When you think of it it's pretty sad that a few non-elected but usually politically asigned judges can make policy with the excuse they are simply enforcing the constitution.
So the question is: if the general medical/scientific consensus is, that a certain additive in foods (or a certain amount of led in toys) could cause cancer, should the government have the power to prohibit it?
Actually, that's a very good question. It's also the question that demonstrates why your model of a liberal society will never work. Because people make stupid decisions all the time, decisions that will end up hurting them, the people around them and society as a whole. If we didn't need the government to impose certain things that every individual would support if they took a minute to think about it, we would've gotten rid of it a long time ago.
Well, first of all not paying taxes doesn't directly harm anyone. Secondly, it could be argued that not vaccinating your children is harming them in a very real way. And thirdly, many if not most of government regulations are about what that government deems best for the greater good (a government, btw, elected by you). So the question here is: if the general medical/scientific consensus is, that vaccination is the best option for a child and the children around him,...
I'm not sure. Vaccinations are often not 100% effective, so the cumulative effect of having (close to) everybody in the (risk) population vaccinated can play a major role imo. Some people here seem to think we should get rid of government involvement as much as possible. I happen to believe the government can and should play a steering role in certain issues, including public health. Will mistakes be made? Sure. And if they are made because of incompetence or...
Except that you do protect the people around you by getting vaccinations. And except that the total cost of being vaccinated and not falling ill is usually (much) smaller than the total cost of not being vaccinated and falling ill. So you are right, if you are willing to keep your kid away from other kids so it can't infect them, and if you are willing to bare the total costs of your kid falling ill because you don't want it vaccinated, maybe you should have the choice. If...
New Posts  All Forums: