Independence Day, 2006.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:02 pm

From here.

Edited By GORDON on 1163368359

Post by **thibodeaux** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:07 pm

Where's my bread and circuses?

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:26 pm

Where's my bread and circuses?

Right here.

Alhazad · Post by **Alhazad** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:52 pm

Man, what a shitty transparent questionnaire.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:54 pm

Why do you hate America?

Alhazad · Post by **Alhazad** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:55 pm

Because of its lack of finesse.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:57 pm

Ah. Nuance?

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:54 am

The only disagreement I have is that I support a minimum wage. I guess I only love 98% of freedom.

WSGrundy · Post by **WSGrundy** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:10 pm

I would disagree with the drug questions to a point. I think you should be free to be a coke head if you want but I still think there needs to be some government intervention. As in if you are a single person who works at the mall and you snort coke at your home and then sit there and watch TV while you are high then go ahead and do it but if you are a parent, a school bus driver, pilot, doctor, or someone else who has people in your care then there needs to be some government intervention to control this.

Not saying that you are approving of coke head doctors operating on people just that the answers were a bit extreme.

As for retirment, I am willing and do save for myself and the idea of giving money to people who are too lazy to save themselves pisses me off I still think social security is the way to go. The alternative of having a bunch of idiots who didn't care to save for themselves now running around with nothing and being homeless/criminals/whatever is worse then the social security methed. I'm all for a better working system but right now unfortunatly I think I have to go with them taking someone my money so the idiots can buy there dog food to survive.

Post by **Vince** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:21 pm

Those 70 year old ladies are pretty weak as muggers. Talk about "hits like a girl"...

WSGrundy · Post by **WSGrundy** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:09 pm

Those 70 year old ladies are pretty weak as muggers. Talk about "hits like a girl"...

I'm not real worried right now about some old person steal my wallet and then out running me with their walker but when I am a 70 who knows!

Now if they used an Amigo during the assult I don't know if I could catch up.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:19 pm

Why do you think the government needs to be the one to monitor the empolyees of schools and hospitals and airlines and their drug habits? You don't trust the companies that run them to do so? If so, why not go to a different school or hospital or airline that you do trust? I see no reason for the government to be involved.

WSGrundy · Post by **WSGrundy** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:51 pm

The government doesn't have to do the testing they just need to be standing by to enforce the law with the police and/or kill them with the death penalty.

If the airline is going to drug test all the pilots all the time then I am fine with them doing it. There just needs to be laws for it.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:55 pm

How about just the ability to bring massive lawsuits?

I mean, did anybody REALLY want Ken Lay in jail... or did they want their money back?

Plus, wouldn't market forces take care of most problems? Once an airline gets a reputation as having the most stringent NON GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED safety measures, I'd probably go out of my way to patronize that company.

Hell, government involvement in any type of imminent safety concern makes me worry all by itself.

Post by **Leisher** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:32 pm

Eh. There's a lot of gray area on the "companies being responsible" thing.

I mean, look how they are now WITH government intrusion.

If they could answer to a government that wasn't vulnerable to lobbyists, then you'd have something.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:35 pm

Some companies are corrupt, sure, but I don't understand how having a corrupt government watch over them makes it any better.

The answer, IMO, is the free flow of information. The internet is a messy and crazy place right now, but then most frontiers are. Once it finally calms down and gets to be a little more civilized, I think it'll be a great tool for the common man to find out what they need to about the companies they patronize, and it'll have an amazingly positive effect on corporate responsibility. But we aren't there yet, that I'll admit.

Post by **Leisher** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:16 am

Some companies are corrupt, sure, but I don't understand how having a corrupt government watch over them makes it any better.

That's my point:

If they could answer to a government that wasn't vulnerable to lobbyists, then you'd have something.

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:50 am

Heh. An uncorrupt government? Who's going to run it, the Easter Bunny? Maybe with Santa Clause as the VP?

Post by **Leisher** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:46 am

Heh. An uncorrupt government? Who's going to run it, the Easter Bunny? Maybe with Santa Clause as the VP?

I didn't say it was realisitc.

Post by **Vince** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:05 pm

Why do you think the government needs to be the one to monitor the empolyees of schools and hospitals and airlines and their drug habits? You don't trust the companies that run them to do so? If so, why not go to a different school or hospital or airline that you do trust? I see no reason for the government to be involved.

Eh... that argument kind of falls apart when you're unconscious after a car accident and being rushed to the ER.

Or if the plane from an airline that DIDN'T drug test its pilots landed on your house in the middle of the night while you were sleeping.

Edited By Vince on 1152228061