DNRTFT, as i'm on my crackberry at a lake somewhere.

Happy 4th, farkers.

Go have a beer and a burger.

Slartibartfaster: how do you toe a line ?

You've never heard that expression before? here's the wiki article on it

when i'm in a wal-mart, serving the ungrateful populace that are, by and large, 'bi...and LARGE'...i know without a doubt that we are lucky to live in this nation, for good or bad.

i wonder if we could do it again with todays citizens.

-that, i highly doubt.

on the 4th of july...i 'suggest' that from now on...we be humble and greatful, for those who went to their deaths, for low prices...

"always"

-happy 4th of july farkland-

Wraithbane: crash665: I have to disagree. MOST people need protection from themselves - I'm looking at you Florida. Most people in this country and in the world don't have enough common sense to get out of the rain. The government's duty is to protect its citizens. Whether it is from others or themselves is meaningless.

Nothing scares me more than the idiot who believes he has a right to "protect me" from myself. And you have no concept of what a government's duty is.

Duty, not a right. If you don't need to be protected, fine, but who's to say no one needs to be protected from you? We don't make checkpoints to protect the drunk drivers, we do it to protect everyone ELSE on the road. And don't tell me you've never done anything which may have resulted in someone else getting hurt if the shiat had hit the fan (if so, i guess you've lived a pretty boring life!). It's that hypothetical "IF" that we need to worry about.

Githerax: nicksteel: where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??



The purple part.

I think you forget that a large part of that purple part was purchased from the French. They were here first.

Emperorsteele: Duty, not a right. If you don't need to be protected, fine, but who's to say no one needs to be protected from you? We don't make checkpoints to protect the drunk drivers, we do it to protect everyone ELSE on the road. And don't tell me you've never done anything which may have resulted in someone else getting hurt if the shiat had hit the fan (if so, i guess you've lived a pretty boring life!). It's that hypothetical "IF" that we need to worry about.

So you are willing to be treated like a criminal, detained and questioned by police, simply on the chance that they may catch one or two drunk drivers (most checkpoints don't catch any) who may or may not have been driving recklessly and may or may not have hurt anyone else if they weren't arrested when they were?

crash665: Seat belt laws are not just "seat belt laws." They give the police unprecedented power to stop, detain, and question anyone in your vehicle. Not to mention fine you potentially hundreds of dollars.

I have to disagree. MOST people need protection from themselves - I'm looking at you Florida. Most people in this country and in the world don't have enough common sense to get out of the rain. The government's duty is to protect its citizens. Whether it is from others or themselves is meaningless. Unfortunately, there are people who will drive while intoxicated and they need to be stopped. It is not our "right" to drive drunk. Unfortunately, many people drive like complete ass-hats and need seat belts.
We bring it upon ourselves. If no one ever drove recklessly and paid attention, then there would be no seat belt laws. If we didn't drink and drive, then there would be no need for road blocks. If no one ever blew their hand off lighting firecrackers or burned there ass sticking a bottle rocket where the sun doesn't shine, then there wouldn't be warning labels on the packages, and we could legally buy them here in Georgia WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE TO ALABAMA TO GET THE GOOD STUFF! (sorry)
If there was no one in the world trying to blow us up, then we wouldn't need the Patriot Act. (If the U.S. had stayed out of the Middle East to begin with, then there may/may not be people trying to blow us up. But that's a different post.)

Frankly, it's not the governments job to "protect us from ourselves." It is our responsibility as American citizens to take that responsibility for us (and by extension our children until they become adults) If people are stupid and kill themselves with dangerous products, then so be it. The government certainly has a responsibility to label stupid things as stupid, but not to deny us that right to do those stupid things as long as we are not harming others.

When you get a situation where government begins mediating what people can and cannot do with their own lives, you run into tyranny.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: crash665:
The government's duty is to protect its citizens. Whether it is from others or themselves is meaningless.

No, it emphatically is not. It makes all the difference in the world. It all comes back to choice.


I think he is half-right. I think that it is the governments duty to protect its citizens rights but not to protect themselves from everything. You have the right to life, it is the governments job to protect you from those that would seek to do you harm. You have the right to be secure in your property, it is the governments job to ensure that those who would steal from you are punished. You have the right to liberty, and it is the governments job to ensure that it does not itself get in the way of that liberty.


There is a distinction. Somebody driving drunk endangers me. Somebody driving without a seatbelt does not endanger me (I don't want to hear any far-fetched scenarios) so I couldn't care less whether they do or not. That should be their choice.
This goes along with the life and liberty stuff I just mentioned, if someone is endangering the lives of others, then the government has an obligation to protect the citizens right to life, this is not to say they should stop people because they might kill themselves while driving under the influence, but only to say they should stop people driving under some intoxicant because they pose a risk to the life and liberty of others.

Seat belts, I agree, do not infringe on others rights, so you should have the liberty to decide whether or not you want to do that. This of course means that if you dont, and a drunk driver hits you, you should not be able to go after the drunk for extra damages that occured as a result of not wearing a seat belt.


If we didn't drink and drive, then there would be no need for road blocks.


This is debatable, I previously posted a link to a news site that investigated DUI checkpoints and how they are far more profitable for non-DUI offenses than they are for DUI related ones, its just a way around the 4th amendment since outside of a DUI checkpoint it has been deemed they need probable cause to ask for identification, proof of insurance and registration taxes paid. The reality is that it should be unconstitutional at a check point as well, since its not valid at any other time without probable cause, and merely being on the road going into a checkpoint should never be considered probable cause.


If no one ever blew their hand off lighting firecrackers or burned there ass sticking a bottle rocket where the sun doesn't shine, then there wouldn't be warning labels on the packages, and we could legally buy them here in Georgia WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE TO ALABAMA TO GET THE GOOD STUFF! (sorry)
Back about 1976 the federal government banned M80s, you have some stuff labeled M80s but they arent the same. You still cant get the "good stuff" because there are a lot of regulations. Additionally, aluminium is listed as a dangerous chemical because its used in flash powder and it ends up being controlled, especially when in powder form. Etch-a-sketches have about 1/4 pound #400 mesh powdered aluminium, no quantity limits, no questions asked :) Getting potassium chlorate (match heads) is difficult in quantity because sellers of it have to ensure that you are not making M80s or other illegal fireworks, although its used for many things, smoke bombs, aerials, ... matches. skylighter.com for example tracks across multiple purchases and bans the sale of them on your first order to comply with ATF regulations on this.

So you can get some stuff, just not all the good things because people feel that its the governments responsibility to protect stupid people from doing stupid things (yet they do nothing to try to improve the schools to make fewer stupid people, interesting).

buzzvert: If I don't believe in a Creator, do I still have certain unalienable rights?

I believe in your mom, why don't you?

trixter_nl: read those closer, they have disclaimers because of the FDA stuff, and market it as a supplement because those are unregulated. If they cross the line and say that they are doing something that diagnoses or treats a medical condition then they have to get permission. A small penis or a fat ass are not currently listed as a medical condition, but that can instantly change if the FDA decides to classify them as such.

If they make a claim like cheerios did with "cheerios lowers chelosterol" then they are making a medical claim and have to get approved by the FDA for the product and have their speech regulated until they get government permission to make such a claim. Note in this case the FDA does not dispute the claim at all, but because the statement is made, the FDA wants millions of dollars to test whether or not cheerios contain oat, and if it does then they would be allowed to do that, although they would then be classified as a medicine not a breakfast cereal. Cheerios has been ordered to no longer say they lower cholesterol, even though the FDA admits that the claim is true.

Again my point is not that the products should not be regulated, it is that the speech/press should not be until there is a constitutional amendment to allow it. If a dangerous product is sold you can still go after people for that, without going after them for what they said about it. It would require 2 things though, 1. following the constitution instead of ignoring it when its not convenient, and 2. actually understanding that there is a difference between the product and the speech/press about that product.

Actaully, the Cheerios statement illustrates why you're wrong in this one. Supposedly, the FDA can regulate not only anything that makes a medical claim but also anything that claims to change a function of the body. That's why, for example, sunscreen and Botox get regulated. If someone calls something a dietary supplement but then say it will burn fat or make your penis bigger, it could be classified as a drug that is subject to the restrictions that other drugs face. It could be that the only reason they're still in business is that the FDA has not chosen to go after them-yet. I'm not really sure.

The problem with foods that make medical claims may have something to do with the exact words they use. If you use the wrong words, then you are required to show that your product is safe and effective the way a drug is. In my opinion, a clinical trial showing some benefit to dietary fiber dosen't mean that the the maker of granolaBITTIES can claim that his particular product is "clinically proven to reduce the risk of colon cancer"


Finally, your argument about the second amendment fails the "yelling 'fire' in a movie theater" test. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to use language anyway or anywhere that you please. The constitution provides for Congress to make laws; it is well established over 200+ years of judicial interpretation that the 1st does not mean that it is OK to yell fire in a movie theater and that the government can make laws to prohibit yelling fire in a movie theater. What you are proposing amounts to saying that the families of people who got trampled after he yelled fire should sue the guy. Nope, the courts have correctly decided that there are reasonable limits and criminal acts should be prosecuted. This does not require a constititional amendment.

Hollywood Cole: buzzvert: If I don't believe in a Creator, do I still have certain unalienable rights?

I believe in your mom, why don't you?

I rofled at that one.

Bio-nic:
Frankly, it's not the governments job to "protect us from ourselves." It is our responsibility as American citizens to take that responsibility for us (and by extension our children until they become adults) If people are stupid and kill themselves with dangerous products, then so be it. The government certainly has a responsibility to label stupid things as stupid, but not to deny us that right to do those stupid things as long as we are not harming others.

When you get a situation where government begins mediating what people can and cannot do with their own lives, you run into tyranny.

Well said, although I had to add a small tweak :)

can'tletyoudothatstarfox...

when i was a young child...we played with lawn jarts.

-and some of us were pretty good at it.

yes...the stupid got hurt.

that's the way it was.

-welcome to totalfark, you glorious bastard!

MajorityWhip: Jefferson Lives - John Adams

For a couple more hours anyways.

Amazing that the two men died on the same day and that the day was July 4 1826.

Weaver95: I have great difficulty reconciling concepts such as the Patriot act, seatbelt legislation, wall street bailouts, RIAA's perversion of US copyright law and the entire War on Drugs with the philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

If you ask me, we've lost our way. we're no longer 'free'. we've been TOLD we're free, but we need permits for everything and today we're going to have to run a gauntlet of drunk driving checkpoints to get around town. Not to mention the fact that the NSA and DHS are going to tap our phones to make sure nobody blows up the statue of Liberty tonight. So I don't think we're 'free'. I think we decidedly less free than we've ever been at any time before in the history of this country.

just my .02 cents.

Less free than the 1950s, the era of McCarthyism, when you have to sign documents swearing that you're not a communist or they'll fire you?
Less free than the time when blacks were slaves and women could not vote?

vertiaset: can I come too?

I lol'd

vertiaset: And why won't the government tell us the truth about AREA 51? We all know 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!

Noone here suggested that ITT AFAIK, those beliefs are crazy.

vertiaset: What about that WAR ON DRUGS? Ir is prohibition pure and simple.

True

vertiaset: If I want to smoke crack or meth or shoot heroin and crash my car into the Foster's Freeze who are they to keep me down.

True

Emperorsteele:
Duty, not a right. If you don't need to be protected, fine, but who's to say no one needs to be protected from you? We don't make checkpoints to protect the drunk drivers, we do it to protect everyone ELSE on the road. And don't tell me you've never done anything which may have resulted in someone else getting hurt if the shiat had hit the fan (if so, i guess you've lived a pretty boring life!). It's that hypothetical "IF" that we need to worry about.

Since this is a Founding Fathers thread...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Declaration read aloud by our true heroes, actors. (new window)

Many people don't want to acknowledge that a Free society requires danger. The more freedom you have, the more risk you take upon yourself. To enact more laws to protect you always at the same time takes away your freedom.

Modern Americans don't want freedom, they would rather have the illusion of safety.

Bauer: can'tletyoudothatstarfox...

when i was a young child...we played with lawn jarts.

-and some of us were pretty good at it.

yes...the stupid got hurt.

that's the way it was.

-welcome to totalfark, you glorious bastard!

Thank you very much, of course, I would always prefer people donate to Free Talk Live. They do more to spread the message of liberty than I could ever do. If you would like a chance at living in the world of personal responsibility and freedom that you remember so fondly again, check out the Free State Project, it is happening. I am going to look for jobs in New Hampshire next year and try to move, hopefully I will see you there someday.

Bauer: can'tletyoudothatstarfox...

when i was a young child...we played with lawn jarts.

-and some of us were pretty good at it.

yes...the stupid got hurt.

that's the way it was.

-welcome to totalfark, you glorious bastard!

When I was a kid, we played with sharp pub darts, and threw them way up in the air. One of them landed in my skull, and there I was, standing with a dart sticking out the top of my head. I was pretty pissed off, but my cousin was no help at all, he fell over and laughing and couldn't stop laughing for a long time. I eventually pulled it out with both hands. We had our freedoms and we liked em.

I've NEVER had the pursuit of happiness.

/Fuk you War on Drugs!

"yet they do nothing to try to improve the schools to make fewer stupid people, interesting"

education, originally, was for the rich.

-that's why.

an uneducated populace is easier to control.

this is the main reason the gop hates teachers unions and lawyers.

uppity book learnin' stuff, and like.

when you say "interesting"...i figure you already know this.

-this.

Animatronik: Bauer: can'tletyoudothatstarfox...

when i was a young child...we played with lawn jarts.

-and some of us were pretty good at it.

yes...the stupid got hurt.

that's the way it was.

-welcome to totalfark, you glorious bastard!

When I was a kid, we played with sharp pub darts, and threw them way up in the air. One of them landed in my skull, and there I was, standing with a dart sticking out the top of my head. I was pretty pissed off, but my cousin was no help at all, he fell over and laughing and couldn't stop laughing for a long time. I eventually pulled it out with both hands. We had our freedoms and we liked em.

good god!!!

i'd love to see that.

-sorry.

Happy 4th of a July!

It is a monumentous day in our history, celebrating our freedom from the british over two centuries ago. We are proud to be living in still the greatest country on earth, but we must fight to keep this country free.


So take the time to contemplate freedom while enjoying a great fourth of july, and enjoy the fireworks!


It has been a brutal decade for civil rights, but we're slowly taking back the freedoms that make this country beautiful. With a little focus, and a little determination, we will preserve the great name of the USA.

So take the time to contemplate freedom while enjoying a great fourth of july, and enjoy the fireworks!

Animatronik: Bauer: can'tletyoudothatstarfox...

when i was a young child...we played with lawn jarts.

-and some of us were pretty good at it.

yes...the stupid got hurt.

that's the way it was.

-welcome to totalfark, you glorious bastard!

When I was a kid, we played with sharp pub darts, and threw them way up in the air. One of them landed in my skull, and there I was, standing with a dart sticking out the top of my head. I was pretty pissed off, but my cousin was no help at all, he fell over and laughing and couldn't stop laughing for a long time. I eventually pulled it out with both hands. We had our freedoms and we liked em.

good god!!!

i'd love to see that.

-sorry.

bet you didn't do that again...did you.

hey...you lived.

:)

trixter_nl: Bio-nic:
Frankly, it's not the governments job to "protect us from ourselves." It is our responsibility as American citizens to take that responsibility for us (and by extension our children until they become adults) If people are stupid and kill themselves with dangerous products, then so be it. The government certainly has a responsibility to label stupid things as stupid, but not to deny us that right to do those stupid things as long as we are not harming others.

When you get a situation where government begins mediating what people can and cannot do with their own lives, you run into tyranny.

Well said, although I had to add a small tweak :)

Thank you, I just stood a 20 hour watch in the NoC and am a little tired (and buzzed from my wonderful Spotted Cow)

.... that among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and 2 tips to lose stomach fat!


Apparently the creators of this site didn't check too carefully who was buying advertising space from them.

Happy birthday, US of A, and have fun pursuing happiness today and everyday, everybody!

Bauer [TotalFark] Quote 2009-07-04 03:03:26 PM
are you going to deny that the cia has fueled and/or carried out covert acts of war against other nations?

-really?

iran?

iraq?

korea?

vietman?

and then iraq, again.

-this is just for starters.

we are the cia.

they work for us.

-we have committed these acts.

all of us.


Yawn............

vertiaset: As an aside, Drew Curtis has said that fewer than 5% of people who read Fark ever post in a thread. So, that leads one to believe that lots and lots of people are reading these threads and laughing their asses off.

The question is are they laughing at us or with us?

At us. Always Always Always at us...

Githerax nicksteel: where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??



The purple part.


If the guilt of taking advantage of all of the benefits of this country gets a little too much for you.....you can always get the hell out.

In fact, you'd be a hypocrite if you didn't.

but then self righteous douchbags like you never have the balls to put up......I just wish you'd shut up though.

Animatronik:
Actaully, the Cheerios statement illustrates why you're wrong in this one. Supposedly, the FDA can regulate not only anything that makes a medical claim but also anything that claims to change a function of the body.


Well not quite. Things are sold that modify a function of the body without any FDA approval or regulation, things like energy drinks. If you read things that the FDA has said like this on infant mattresses its about medical claims, not bodily functions. Treatment or cure of a disease or syndrome is a medical claim. High cholesterol is considered a disease (I am unsure if they use that word or have a similar one but that concept), and as such anything attempting to treat it has to go through approval not just of the product, but also the speech that discusses the product.

Most of the grey area FDA things like penis enlarging boobie swelling fat burning supplements have a disclaimer that they are not diagnosing treating or curing any disease. Its usually in fine print that ends up too fuzzy and small to actually be read, but its there.



Finally, your argument about the second amendment fails the "yelling 'fire' in a movie theater" test.

No, you just appear to not understand what the 2nd amendment says.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

What this means is -
"the right of the people" heller affirmed its a personal right
"to keep and bear arms" to own and possess weapons and to use them in defence you have to go back to the 1500s for the origin of the phrase 'bear arms'. There is no right to use them for anything but defence, hunting is not protected, target shooting is not protected, use for defence is protected (although it would be insane to say that people can use them in defence but cant practice so target shooting should be allowed).
"shall not be infringed" even in heller the court avoided this phrase, but it means no infringement, none, zero.

So now that its broken down a bit, it doesnt even equate to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The defence aspect changes it a bit, and without that knowledge of the history and origin of the phrase (which originally judges, presidents, and legal scholars all agreed that is what it meant at that time) it appears to be a similar argument but after closer inspection it is not close to being equal.


Further as for yelling fire in a crowded theater, that is the court saying you cant do that, not the constitution. Now here is how that should be dealt with. Do not make a law that says its illegal (Congress shall pass no law and all that), instead hold people responsible for the outcome of their actions. If you yell fire and people run and trample each other, charge them not with the speech but rather the result, the injury to others. Its a fine line, but it keeps the speech itself free, while holding people responsible for their actions.

I firmly believe that the bill of rights also includes a tacit bill of responsibilities, and that people need to take personal responsibility for their actions, and the results of those actions. Instead of blaming video games and TV for bad parenting blame the people who did something that was deemed socially unacceptable. If people were forced to take responsibility for their own actions instead of seeking out everything else to blame you would find that most of the rules people think they need are actually unneeded.



Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to use language anyway or anywhere that you please. The constitution provides for Congress to make laws

It actually does not provide for them to make a law that restricts speech, religion, assembly or press. Specifically I point to the first amendment which starts out with "Congress shall make no law" which implicitly states that it is not allowed to do that, despite your insistence that it is, saying that SCOTUS can modify without ratification any part of the constitution it sees fit just because they said so is not proof that it is authorized under the constitution.

The first amendment, the freedom of speech means that you are free from government restrictions not private ones, on private property or if I am infringing on the rights of others then I am not allowed to do it, because nothing in the constitution states that I am allowed to infringe on the rights of others. The first amendment only applies to the government and not anyone else (technically only to Congress and not to the states, something else SCOTUS modified).

The caveat that is used for the fire argument is the protection of other peoples rights, although it still does not allow congress to make such a law, but does enable the states to do it. The words that were chosen were done so intentionally, to reassign the word Congress to mean the federal government and states only in that section but not anywhere else is a bit silly.

this would get back to one of the founding fathers statements (I want to say Adams, but I could be wrong, and I dont recall the exact quote) that the states should compete for citizens by way of laws, taxes, etc that the citizens desire.

I am also one of those people that believe that if you dont like the constitution you should seek to modify it and have that modification ratified, if you are unable to get it ratified, then suck it. Ignoring it and encouraging the court to ignore it creates great harm to the people, but it does create a government where its easier for corporate lobbyists to buy off politicians. If they are allowed to ignore one part, redefine another, exempt some additional parts, then what is left? At what point can they no longer do this? At what point will all the freedoms and liberties be gone?

If SCOTUS can at will just redefine what it sees fit, why cant it just say that the legislature is redefined in a way that gives them no power, and the executive a lot more power to the point that it ends up being a dictatorship? All it would take is some redefinition in a few key places and its a facist regime. Now the people would not tolerate that if it happened all at once, but once you open the door its a slow progression to total government control over everything.

Remember the states are sovereign entities, they only gave the federal government a tiny bit of that sovereignty and they are supposed to be more powerful than the federal government which gives the people more power. I am sure that almost everyone here disagrees with either the obama administration or the bush administration, and if the power was at the state level, they could more easily recall the official when they do something they dont like, they could more easily vote via a referrundum on controversial laws, they could more easily move to a different state if things get too bad and they are in the minority. When its a massive federal government that ability to have that level of control over the government is gone.

Bauer: Animatronik: Bauer: can'tletyoudothatstarfox...

when i was a young child...we played with lawn jarts.

-and some of us were pretty good at it.

yes...the stupid got hurt.

that's the way it was.

-welcome to totalfark, you glorious bastard!

When I was a kid, we played with sharp pub darts, and threw them way up in the air. One of them landed in my skull, and there I was, standing with a dart sticking out the top of my head. I was pretty pissed off, but my cousin was no help at all, he fell over and laughing and couldn't stop laughing for a long time. I eventually pulled it out with both hands. We had our freedoms and we liked em.

good god!!!

i'd love to see that.

-sorry.

bet you didn't do that again...did you.

hey...you lived.

:)

That's not one of the most dangerous things I did - not even close.

There is no way to keep boys totally safe, you just have to channel their behavior. Most really good chemists went through a childhood phase where they just wanted to Blow Stuff Up. I knew a chemist on the short list for a Nobel at one time, who, when he was a kid destroyed a shed with a 55 gallon drum filled with homemade explosives. Luckily he becamse a famous chemist instead of a terrorist. When I was a kid tinkering with chemicals, I discovered a way to make a lot of hydrogen really fast. I made a hydrogen cannon and narrowly missed shooting myself in the head with it.

No M-80's? No problem. we just spent some time getting the powder out of a bunch of fireworks and making our own giant explosive firecracker.

At one point I wondered what it would take to melt various things, so I made a homemade carbon arc, which could heat something up to thousands of degrees. I wore 2 pairs of sunglasses to protest my eyes. What a dumbass I was. Yes the fire department had to be called a couple times but nobody got hurt and the house wasn't burned down.

I like Franklin better:

What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?"

This was asked by a curious woman of Benjamin Franklin in Sept. 1787, when he emerged from the last session of the Constitutional Convention. It is said that his response was,

"A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Sigh....more founding father worship from the
sheeple. Guess I gotta set ya straight once more.

Oh well, here goes:
the Declaration of Independence was propaganda
for the counter revolution of the aristocrats.

The objective of the counter revolution was to thwart
democracy in the colonies by using a pseudo-
democratic federal constitution that would
increase factions in political districts by enlarging
said factions. That way the majority would not be able to
"unite and discover their common interest" (quote
from james madison, the father of the constitution).

The purpose of the counter revolution and the new federal constitution was to protect the wealth of the rich, aka "the minority of the opulent." (quote from madison).


Madison wrote that "democracy was not right
for america."

Madison wrote to Jefferson that the way to run
america was to "divide et impera."

The federal govt and its constitution was the way to divide and rule the masses by enlarging the political
districts, thus making it hard for the masses to unite and control their own govt.

the offices of the president and the senate are the main way that the factions are enlarged. The president and the
senators are elected from large districts and are
therefore not very accountable to the voters.

Real democracies, eg. , all the other western nations, have parliamentarian govts, where the power is in the assembly, whose members are elected from small
districts.


For more on this, read Fresia's online book
TOWARD AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION and read Dr Woody Holton's online articles/esaays (google "an excess of democracy")

/now back to your regularly scheduled pseudopolitical debates....

what you call "taking advantage of all of the benefits of this country"...i call the rape of the natural land.

-you should be greatful to live in this nation.

it protects you from physical harm when you post idiotic comments online.

for a troll like you...that's golden!

don't spoil the moment.

go with it...

bring it to the table.

"what's your beef"?

trixter_nl: Animatronik:
Actaully, the Cheerios statement illustrates why you're wrong in this one. Supposedly, the FDA can regulate not only anything that makes a medical claim but also anything that claims to change a function of the body.


Well not quite. Things are sold that modify a function of the body without any FDA approval or regulation, things like energy drinks. If you read things that the FDA has said like this on infant mattresses its about medical claims, not bodily functions.

Read what I said. I said "anything that claims to change a function of the body". Note the use of the word "claims". energy drinks may change a function of the body (I'm not sure) but you won't find one that claims to do so, as a benefit to induce you to buy the product.


Treatment or cure of a disease or syndrome is a medical claim. High cholesterol is considered a disease (I am unsure if they use that word or have a similar one but that concept), and as such anything attempting to treat it has to go through approval not just of the product, but also the speech that discusses the product.


Lowering cholesterol is changing a function of the body, not treating a disease.


Most of the grey area FDA things like penis enlarging boobie swelling fat burning supplements have a disclaimer that they are not diagnosing treating or curing any disease. Its usually in fine print that ends up too fuzzy and small to actually be read, but its there.


As I said, it's my opinion that disclaimers like that are not a protection if you claim to be making a change that affects bodily functon. Remember all of those adds for enzyte or whatever, supposedly a dietary supplement? I'm pretty sure that they had a disclaimer about FDA evaluation. Didn't help their CEO.


Finally, your argument about the second amendment fails the "yelling 'fire' in a movie theater" test.

No, you just appear to not understand what the 2nd amendment says.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

What this means is -
"the right of the people" heller affirmed its a personal right
"to keep and bear arms" to own and possess weapons and to use them in defence you have to go back to the 1500s for the origin of the phrase 'bear arms'. There is no right to use them for anything but defence, hunting is not protected, target shooting is not protected, use for defence is protected (although it would be insane to say that people can use them in defence but cant practice so target shooting should be allowed).
"shall not be infringed" even in heller the court avoided this phrase, but it means no infringement, none, zero.

You bastid, you've been trolling me. Or something. I'm pretty sure I haven't biatched about the 2nd amendment since yesterday. I need more beer. And some Extenze.

Weaver95: I have great difficulty reconciling concepts such as the Patriot act, seatbelt legislation, wall street bailouts, RIAA's perversion of US copyright law and the entire War on Drugs with the philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

If you ask me, we've lost our way. we're no longer 'free'. we've been TOLD we're free, but we need permits for everything and today we're going to have to run a gauntlet of drunk driving checkpoints to get around town. Not to mention the fact that the NSA and DHS are going to tap our phones to make sure nobody blows up the statue of Liberty tonight. So I don't think we're 'free'. I think we decidedly less free than we've ever been at any time before in the history of this country.

just my .02 cents.


What your describing is government, what you want is chaos. True and complete freedom is anarchy. Of course there will always be the discussion of how far government should go, and what exactly they should manage but the idea that government is meant to be free and nonrestrictive is a fantasy.

Government isn't meant to be perfect boys and girls, I know, shocking isn't it? Its unrealistic that it ever will be as well.

That isn't to say that there aren't problems, that there aren't concerns, but call me when you've been locked up for speaking your mind or you aren't able to worship any damn god you want, or the government takes away your guns. Etc.

animatronik...

-you seem like a rather 'quick' farker.

i, too, had a 'lab'...and know that you should not add mothballs, ammonia and baking soda, together.

we'll see if you last the week.

don't implode or anything.

;)

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Nocens: He's actually 100% correct.

They don't constitutionally have the power they claim to wield. But, they are the most powerful branch of the government and the only checks against them are long in between.

Somewhere along the line, SCOTUS deviated in its mission to interpret the Constitution to the letter forcing American society to evolve within its constraints and embarked on interpretation to fit society's evolution.

The judiciary is the most powerful branch? What a ridiculous assertion. SCOTUS takes around 100 cases a year, most of which have no practical effect whatsoever on the lives of the citizenry, or deal with procedural issues. When they do have a "landmark" opinion, it's usually a slight tweak in what the standard currently is. Congress meanwhile has regulated every single aspect of our lives without exception. Besides what has become a general police power via the Commerce Clause, they have the power to impeach the President and strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. Congress is by far the most powerful of the branches, and always has been. The framers ("founding fathers," is a little too deity-like for my liking) recognized this in the Federalist Papers among other founding era documents.

This is where I stopped reading. You are an idiot.

Animatronik: trixter_nl: Animatronik:
Actaully, the Cheerios statement illustrates why you're wrong in this one. Supposedly, the FDA can regulate not only anything that makes a medical claim but also anything that claims to change a function of the body.


Well not quite. Things are sold that modify a function of the body without any FDA approval or regulation, things like energy drinks. If you read things that the FDA has said like this on infant mattresses its about medical claims, not bodily functions.

Read what I said. I said "anything that claims to change a function of the body". Note the use of the word "claims". energy drinks may change a function of the body (I'm not sure) but you won't find one that claims to do so, as a benefit to induce you to buy the product.


They dont claim to give you energy? Hmm.. I think they do. From what I read its on making a "medical claim" and not "changes a function of the body". There is a difference between the two. Here are a couple of examples

fda.gov
If the soap makes a medical claim, such as that it will cure dandruff, it is considered a drug and must carry required drug labeling and also meet FDA safety and effectiveness requirements.

fda.gov
However, FDA does not regulate such products unless the manufacturer intends to make a medical claim.

fda.gov
A medical claim for condoms as being effective against STDs requires that appropriate laboratory tests be performed.


They consistently use the term medical claim and not changing a bodys function. Sunscreen and condoms do not change the bodys function but if they make a medical claim they are regulated.


You bastid, you've been trolling me. Or something. I'm pretty sure I haven't biatched about the 2nd amendment since yesterday. I need more beer. And some Extenze.

you, or someone in your post, brought up the phrase "2nd amendment" not me, saying that my interpretation of it was like yelling fire in a theater (and it has to be a crowded theater, an empty one has no effects). I only responded to what you said.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: crash665: I am probably misquoting, but wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who also said that in order to be free, we must give up some parts of freedom? If this was a completely free society, then it would be anarchy. Complete freedom means doing whatever you want, when you want. You can have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all you want; as long as you don't deny someone else to right to do the same. It's not 100% free, but then again, complete freedom like what you are espousing, would not be a good thing.

He isn't advocating anarchy. Of course anarchy isn't what most people think it is anyway (most people erroneously equate it with chaos). There is a difference between protecting citizenry from the aggression of others and protecting citizenry from themselves. The first is a debatably legitimate function of government, the second is not.

Plus, are you that angry over seat belt laws? Really? In the same sentence with the RIAA and the Patriot Act? WOW!

Seat belt laws are not just "seat belt laws." They give the police unprecedented power to stop, detain, and question anyone in your vehicle. Not to mention fine you potentially hundreds of dollars.

Mr. Justice Scalia, and virtually all of the framers of the Constitution of the United States would disagree with you. That's why they delegated to the states a general power to police the health, safety, and morals of their citizens. There is no doubt but that our founding fathers regarded state paternalism as a legitimate function of government.

Happy 4th of July, Farkers!

I know you've got some issues with your gov't. Lord knows we do up here as well, but just remember that its a work in process. As long as you believe you're heading in the right direction, thats the most important part.

Yeah congratulations men, you've managed to keep women from having equal rights this long. Let's see how long you can do it!

Typhoid: Yeah congratulations men, you've managed to keep women from having equal rights this long. Let's see how long you can do it!

As long as you stay in the kitchen.

Bauer: i, too, had a 'lab'...and know that you should not add mothballs, ammonia and baking soda, together.

No idea what that makes. Doesn't soound like the way to make a nitro compound. I never fooled around with stuff like that. Nitro compounds are extremely unstable in the wrong hands, i knew that when I was 14 and did not try to make nitrglycerin or anything like that. Good way to lose fingers or worse.

But don't worry, my days of blowing stuff up for fun are long past. Although I do get a tear in my eye when I watch mythbusters sometimes.

Bio-nic: crash665: Seat belt laws are not just "seat belt laws." They give the police unprecedented power to stop, detain, and question anyone in your vehicle. Not to mention fine you potentially hundreds of dollars.

I have to disagree. MOST people need protection from themselves - I'm looking at you Florida. Most people in this country and in the world don't have enough common sense to get out of the rain. The government's duty is to protect its citizens. Whether it is from others or themselves is meaningless. Unfortunately, there are people who will drive while intoxicated and they need to be stopped. It is not our "right" to drive drunk. Unfortunately, many people drive like complete ass-hats and need seat belts.
We bring it upon ourselves. If no one ever drove recklessly and paid attention, then there would be no seat belt laws. If we didn't drink and drive, then there would be no need for road blocks. If no one ever blew their hand off lighting firecrackers or burned there ass sticking a bottle rocket where the sun doesn't shine, then there wouldn't be warning labels on the packages, and we could legally buy them here in Georgia WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE TO ALABAMA TO GET THE GOOD STUFF! (sorry)
If there was no one in the world trying to blow us up, then we wouldn't need the Patriot Act. (If the U.S. had stayed out of the Middle East to begin with, then there may/may not be people trying to blow us up. But that's a different post.)

Frankly, it's not the governments job to "protect us from ourselves." It is our responsibility as American citizens to take that responsibility for us (and by extension our children until they become adults) If people are stupid and kill themselves with dangerous products, then so be it. The government certainly has a responsibility to label stupid things as stupid, but not to deny us that right to do those stupid things as long as we are not harming others.

When you get a situation where government begins mediating what people can and cannot do with their own lives, you run into tyranny.

Absolute hokum. Tyranny is concentration of too much power into too few hands, or unjustly cruel or oppressive government. Requiring people to use seat belts, a law which manifestly causes people to act for their own good, in no meaningful sense constitutes "tyranny."

m2313: Typhoid: Yeah congratulations men, you've managed to keep women from having equal rights this long. Let's see how long you can do it!

As long as you stay in the kitchen.

My pies will be poisoned, but you're welcome to them.

"Road blocks are an abomination. I'd rather take my chances with a drunk any day than be treated like a criminal and be questioned and detained by police."


Since I was trying to have a decent conversation with people who disagree with me and do so without resorting to name calling - It looks like I can't help it. (thank you, wolfbane or whatever your name is - is everyone who has a different opinion than you an idiot, too?) ) I'd say you are the sad little person. Take your chances with a drunk behind a car? Wow! That's idiotic! You can sit there and think that the government should protect you from the "bad guys" without having to actually do anything all you want. Let's not do wiretapping. Let's just ask if someone is going to do something bad. They'll tell us. I'm sure.
Don't wear a seat belt. Maybe you'll fly through the wind shield and the world will be rid of you and your idiotic ideology. (Oh yeah, maybe your kids will be smart enough to wear them - I don't wish suffering on any child.)
Let the government protect me as long as they don't do anything I don't like, right? Protect this country, but let me do what ever the hell I like! Once reality sets in, you'll realize that there are necessary evils in the world. Some of these happen to be law and rules and government policies you don't like.
As far as my argument over the fireworks? In Georgia, some of them are legal, some aren't. I disagree with this law much like you and others here on Fark do with the seat belt laws. I will buy them, and if I get a ticket for shooting the illegal ones, I won't whine and complain and write protest letters. I will accept the fact that I violated a law that I chose to violate.
Now, I'm going outside to swim in my pool and then shoot fireworks. (Watch out for the cops! They're evil!) Thank you, and Fark You All!

cry0fan: Sigh....more founding father worship from the
sheeple. Guess I gotta set ya straight once more.

Oh well, here goes:
the Declaration of Independence was propaganda
for the counter revolution of the aristocrats.

The objective of the counter revolution was to thwart
democracy in the colonies by using a pseudo-
democratic federal constitution that would
increase factions in political districts by enlarging
said factions. That way the majority would not be able to
"unite and discover their common interest" (quote
from james madison, the father of the constitution).

The purpose of the counter revolution and the new federal constitution was to protect the wealth of the rich, aka "the minority of the opulent." (quote from madison).


Madison wrote that "democracy was not right
for america."

Madison wrote to Jefferson that the way to run
america was to "divide et impera."

The federal govt and its constitution was the way to divide and rule the masses by enlarging the political
districts, thus making it hard for the masses to unite and control their own govt.

the offices of the president and the senate are the main way that the factions are enlarged. The president and the
senators are elected from large districts and are
therefore not very accountable to the voters.

Real democracies, eg. , all the other western nations, have parliamentarian govts, where the power is in the assembly, whose members are elected from small
districts.


For more on this, read Fresia's online book
TOWARD AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION and read Dr Woody Holton's online articles/esaays (google "an excess of democracy")

/now back to your regularly scheduled pseudopolitical debates....

Democracy is a terrible form of government. You seem to like the idea of it though so I want to make sure you understand what it really is. Democracy in simple terms is two wolves and a hen voting on whats for dinner. Republican government is a government that is based upon the rule of law. We were intended to be the latter. Yes, the system was initially set up only to allow landowners to have a say in the system. This was a good thing. You do not want uneducated plebs to have a say in any form of republican government. There are always far more morons than intelligent people, and once politicians learn that they can get power by catering to the plebs and giving the masses what they want a government quickly becomes the corrupt fear mongering farce of a system that we have today.