|
IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Famous title comes to consoles. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
LOL , I appreciate your humor. I really do wish I was rich though, and if I was I would just about never be on a pc, Hell I'd give up video games too, because I would flying my own aircraft. ! LOL, Have a good evening Soviet Ace, Your friend Desode |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Anyhow, what's really the difference between strong state governments and a strong federal government? Is it really easier and more efficient to manage a state of 11.5 million people (Ohio) than a nation of 300 million? After you reach a certain number of people, it really doesn't matter how many you have. Speaking as someone who has to deal with one of the worse state governments in the US, I'd much rather have the federal government managing things. It's important also to realize that the founding fathers had very diverse views and didn't all think alike. For example, Alexander Hamilton thought we should have an elected king, Ben Franklin wanted national representation to be based on the amount of money states donated to the federal government, and Thomas Paine thought the inheritance of wealth should be banned. You can't really paint them all with the same brush, so to speak. Another thing to remember is that the Constitution is a "living document" (Jefferson himself coined this phrase) No system of laws could possibly be devised that is capable of dealing with all future changes without itself being modified. If that were possible, we'd all be living under the Code of Hammurabi. The Constitution is not a perfect document, after all, it implicitly condoned slavery. We don't follow that part any more. When the Constitution was written, what health care there was available was generally cheap and not that effective, so there was no need to guarantee medical services in the Constitution. Anyway, this is just pointless speculation in my mind because I don't think that there's any inherent conflict between a public insurance option and the Constitution. The General Welfare clause is more than enough justification in my book. I don't think the public option goes far enough, however. I'm a proponent of a completely nationalized system, and that does conflict with the Constitution. This is one of the reasons (although again not the primary) that I'm seriously considering emigration. In the arena of power & corruption, I'd much rather have the government than a profit-driven mega corporation to deal with. At least with the government we actually have a say in who makes the decisions. You are right that we probably share many of the same goals (at least in regards to health care) and I agree that all power rests on the people of the country. It's just that I view the federal government as the structure we use to implement the will of those people. The federal government is not some enemy to be fought, it's us. If there are flaws in it (and believe me, there are), it's a result of an undereducated, apathetic populace. We get the government we deserve. This is why I believe the American situation beyond hope of improvement. The middle class is shrinking, the public is becoming less and less informed and rationality is all but dead in the majority. What problems we do have in the government (and I'd argue that 80% of them come from the right) are but a minor symptom of a much worse disease. One last thing: In your previous post you also claimed that the government has never made anything profitable. (I think it was in one of the copy & paste sections). I'd suggest you go look up the Tennessee Valley Authority, for starters. Well, that's what I think anyway. I didn't touch on everything in your post, but I think I hit the gist. All-in-all, this has been quite a stimulating dialog. I'd be happy to continue it if you have any more to add. And feel free to use cut & paste if you want, just please point it out when you do so, so I don't get confused. -Later, Swagger7 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|