Gov. regulates marriage 1) beacuse gov. has an interest in familial harmony and marriage helps keep some of these issues out of the courts 2) beacuse marriage influences inheritance rights 3) regulating marriage helps keep property interests in order 4) regulating marriage keeps family members from marrying each other. 5) I'm sure there are a half dozen more that I just can't think of off the top of my head.
Great point, defiance. We use dredges that are far far outdated. The Netherlands have dredges that make ours look like they were built in the 1920s. The Fed. Gov says you can't use foreign dredges though so we are stuck living in the past. Fla., Ala, Miss. La, these states have made it clear, they will pay for any efforts to clean the oil and protect the coast, including shipping dredges in from across the world. The Fed. Gov won't even allow us to do that. Moreover, it's not even clear if we would be able to recoup our expenses from the companies at fault here because the Fed. Gov controls that too!
Our country was founded on a deep struggle between state rights and federal unity. Today, we can hardly recognize the way this country balanced those rights and responsibilities.
Ask me in a few weeks when refineries stop getting gulf oil and gas costs you $4 or $5 a gallon if we are losing something. Ask the thousands of people who will be losing their jobs if they are losing something. That's not just the guys who drill but the entire marine industry, the small cleaning shops that clean their uniforms, the college students whose tuition is kept affordable because of oil revenue the state takes in. Ask the kids of the people losing their jobs Can you grasp that and explain why a moratorium is a good idea? Because the President hasn't been able to explain to anyone why EXACTLY he things a moratorium is necessary.
I want the President to stop trying to impose a moratorium on drilling when EVERY geological and oil drilling expert (again, many who stand to make a lot of money off a moratorium) says that it will simply do no good. I want the President to put one person in charge of the coast guard, the army corps, the agencies overseeing the oil company so that when dredges that protect land and barges that suck up oil get stopped from leaving the dock, the governor can call that one person and tell him to make something happen. I want the President to stop acting like this is about politics and start acting like people are losing their lives and livelihoods.
BP is to blame for the spill. Obama, and the Federal gov. he leads, is responsible for the disastrous response. In countless instances, local parish and state governments were willing to front the money, manpower and initiative to quickly save marshland and animals only to be stopped by Fed gov. interference.
Obama is compounding the problem beyond comprehension by imposing a moratorium on drilling. (more oversight and regulation). The moratorium will cost the U.S. THOUSANDS of jobs, Billions of barrels of domestic oil and create an even more unsafe situation than before. Obama has admitted the Federal gov. doesn't know nearly enough about oil to interfere with BP's effort to control the leak, yet apparently it knows enough to shut down operations across the board until it figures out a way to add more regulation.
The most prominent scientists in the field (many of whom stand to make a lot of money off a moratorium) have all said the moratorium is a waste of resources and will do far more harm than good, a federal judge says the government has acted arbitrarily by enacting the moratorium and the people of the gulf cost have made it clear they can't survive a moratorium. Obama has decided his political health can't sustain a turn around at this point and thus we have a moratorium. This is exactly what happens when we continue to give the Fed Gov. more power instead of local and state authorities.
I know the sheriff is the tax collector, but can he simply take the money? Should he first issue a tax bill? He would have to have court judgment, right? Even if you don't pay your taxes, the sheriff can't just come into your house and start collecting things. He has to have the court order the judicial sale.
I'd keep this up, but your reasoning isn't worth debating anymore.
I'm not advocating poverty or raising children in poverty. I'm advocating that we not kill children simply because that might be a problem for some percentage of them. To do so would be to advocate that we euthanize people who live in poverty. If there is no reason to force a child to live through poverty, why are we forcing others to live through it?
Also, let's not pretend that the motivation to abort a child is compassion.
It's convenient not to have a child when you don't have access to great resources. However, many people make difficult choices every day and raise children as single parents in difficult situations. Poverty is not a tragic situation. Millions and millions of people all over the world live in poverty and are able to do it without taking their life or another's. Escaping poverty isn't worth taking a life.
Are you saying that we shouldn't attempt to save any lives if we can't save them all? That's not very productive logic. I guess we should stop all charity work and institutional assistance of any kind.
You are using relativistic thinking to justify actions that everyone can agree are not correct. Even you admitted it's a tragic situation. Why make it worse?
Carmichael: Twenty-one shots? How ’bout 21 bong hits
Well but Calvin. I'm afraid too many today believe that everything is a right instead of a privilege.
February 17, 2011 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Free: Those against equality share in deaths
Gov. regulates marriage 1) beacuse gov. has an interest in familial harmony and marriage helps keep some of these issues out of the courts 2) beacuse marriage influences inheritance rights 3) regulating marriage helps keep property interests in order 4) regulating marriage keeps family members from marrying each other. 5) I'm sure there are a half dozen more that I just can't think of off the top of my head.
October 21, 2010 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Robinson: BP, Obama should take responsibility for spill
Great point, defiance. We use dredges that are far far outdated. The Netherlands have dredges that make ours look like they were built in the 1920s. The Fed. Gov says you can't use foreign dredges though so we are stuck living in the past. Fla., Ala, Miss. La, these states have made it clear, they will pay for any efforts to clean the oil and protect the coast, including shipping dredges in from across the world. The Fed. Gov won't even allow us to do that. Moreover, it's not even clear if we would be able to recoup our expenses from the companies at fault here because the Fed. Gov controls that too!
Our country was founded on a deep struggle between state rights and federal unity. Today, we can hardly recognize the way this country balanced those rights and responsibilities.
June 25, 2010 at 12:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Robinson: BP, Obama should take responsibility for spill
Ask me in a few weeks when refineries stop getting gulf oil and gas costs you $4 or $5 a gallon if we are losing something. Ask the thousands of people who will be losing their jobs if they are losing something. That's not just the guys who drill but the entire marine industry, the small cleaning shops that clean their uniforms, the college students whose tuition is kept affordable because of oil revenue the state takes in. Ask the kids of the people losing their jobs Can you grasp that and explain why a moratorium is a good idea? Because the President hasn't been able to explain to anyone why EXACTLY he things a moratorium is necessary.
I want the President to stop trying to impose a moratorium on drilling when EVERY geological and oil drilling expert (again, many who stand to make a lot of money off a moratorium) says that it will simply do no good. I want the President to put one person in charge of the coast guard, the army corps, the agencies overseeing the oil company so that when dredges that protect land and barges that suck up oil get stopped from leaving the dock, the governor can call that one person and tell him to make something happen. I want the President to stop acting like this is about politics and start acting like people are losing their lives and livelihoods.
That's what I want him to do.
June 24, 2010 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Robinson: BP, Obama should take responsibility for spill
BP is to blame for the spill. Obama, and the Federal gov. he leads, is responsible for the disastrous response. In countless instances, local parish and state governments were willing to front the money, manpower and initiative to quickly save marshland and animals only to be stopped by Fed gov. interference.
Obama is compounding the problem beyond comprehension by imposing a moratorium on drilling. (more oversight and regulation). The moratorium will cost the U.S. THOUSANDS of jobs, Billions of barrels of domestic oil and create an even more unsafe situation than before. Obama has admitted the Federal gov. doesn't know nearly enough about oil to interfere with BP's effort to control the leak, yet apparently it knows enough to shut down operations across the board until it figures out a way to add more regulation.
The most prominent scientists in the field (many of whom stand to make a lot of money off a moratorium) have all said the moratorium is a waste of resources and will do far more harm than good, a federal judge says the government has acted arbitrarily by enacting the moratorium and the people of the gulf cost have made it clear they can't survive a moratorium. Obama has decided his political health can't sustain a turn around at this point and thus we have a moratorium. This is exactly what happens when we continue to give the Fed Gov. more power instead of local and state authorities.
June 22, 2010 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sacred Journey hits another bump in the legal system
I know the sheriff is the tax collector, but can he simply take the money? Should he first issue a tax bill? He would have to have court judgment, right? Even if you don't pay your taxes, the sheriff can't just come into your house and start collecting things. He has to have the court order the judicial sale.
June 17, 2010 at 9:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cohen: Let's make Kansas proud
I'd keep this up, but your reasoning isn't worth debating anymore.
I'm not advocating poverty or raising children in poverty. I'm advocating that we not kill children simply because that might be a problem for some percentage of them. To do so would be to advocate that we euthanize people who live in poverty. If there is no reason to force a child to live through poverty, why are we forcing others to live through it?
Also, let's not pretend that the motivation to abort a child is compassion.
May 6, 2010 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cohen: Let's make Kansas proud
Ever read stories about doctors hearing the baby crying during late term abortions? If the baby doesn't know it's alive, it sure knows its dieing.
You don't have to travel to find poor people. I've met people struggling to make ends meet as single parents with multiple children right here.
Your argument here is entirely conclusion based. It seems you have this belief but no basis for why you believe in it.
May 6, 2010 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cohen: Let's make Kansas proud
Poverty isn't good. Death is worse. Even someone with no education and not a dime to his name can tell you that.
May 5, 2010 at 9:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cohen: Let's make Kansas proud
Glad you seem to know so much about me.
It's convenient not to have a child when you don't have access to great resources. However, many people make difficult choices every day and raise children as single parents in difficult situations. Poverty is not a tragic situation. Millions and millions of people all over the world live in poverty and are able to do it without taking their life or another's. Escaping poverty isn't worth taking a life.
Are you saying that we shouldn't attempt to save any lives if we can't save them all? That's not very productive logic. I guess we should stop all charity work and institutional assistance of any kind.
You are using relativistic thinking to justify actions that everyone can agree are not correct. Even you admitted it's a tragic situation. Why make it worse?
May 5, 2010 at 6:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )