Can Any Dem/lib Tell Us What Agency The Govt Has Run Efficiently?

[TakeAStepBack]

It's called voluntary vs. compulsory.

If you're suggesting that the private sector is even remotely as inefficient as government, you're in worse intellectual shape than I ever imagined.

 

[Sallow]

Of course they have.

They hold that the US, itself, has no real "value".

They talk about "fiat" currency.

It's all doomsday bullshit, as if pegging anything against gold, a metal which is basically worthless, is something better to do.

The world pegs IT'S currency against the US dollar. Why? Because it does have value. It has value because the US economy is the strongest in the world.

The world doesn't peg against the Euro, the Yuan, the Pound or the Yen.

You're understanding of economics is so lack luster, having you go on a rant is amusing, but nothing more Shallow. I dubbed thee Shallow for a reason. Your incredible lack of knowledge in any subject matter.

Poor thing.

Well you and your peeps have been predicting another financial cataclysm since Obama got into office and fixed the one caused by your peeps.

Hasn't happened yet.

And when Clinton was in office? Same thing.

Rush Limbaugh even compared the Clinton administration to terrorists holding the country hostage.

Why is it when the Rand/Friedman brigade is at the helm, the government spends like crazy, creates massive deficits and ***** things up in general..and when they aren't at the helm they are complaining like crazy and shutting down the government.

Heck..if you like Austria so much? Move there.

 

[candycorn]

I'll go futher. There has never been anything that has been run perfectly. Ever! Which makes it the perfect bar for govt to grasp for. One that no entity on the planet has reached.

Thats fair

And what is the difference?

You're right what is the difference between everything on the planet and govt?

It's a rather large one for anyone with a luke warm IQ. The money that the private sector uses to conduct business belongs to them. The public sector on the other hand takes money from other people and then proceeds to waste it on levels that would make the largest organized crime ring blush. That's why when it comes to inefficiency and waste, the government is by far the biggest culprit. It's very easy to waste other people's money.

Yeah thats why govt should base their model on that thing that doesnt exists that doesnt have any fraud or waste. Its called....NOTHING IN THE ******* WORLD

I think we've pretty much decapitated the thesis of the OP as well as the author and made her a laughing stock.

That being said, what the Federal Government should do every 10 years right after the new Congress is sworn in is this:

Start with a blank sheet of paper in the budget process. Don't even worry about the expected receipts yet.

Have each department (IRS, DHS, Interior, State, Defense, Vet Affairs, HHS, etc...) submit a budget. Any expenditure over $1,000,000.00 (or if you like, $10M) must be voted on in a separate bill by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

So we can see who is for the expenditures @NLT so capably pointed out. Not all of what was listed is true waste...but you get the idea. By doing so, you can't lump in fuel for Air Force One (which we need) with titanium plated Presidential golf clubs (which we don't).

It would take several weeks to fund the government but they seem to be doing little else up there.

 

[OriginalShroom]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

How stupid is that? So you think by each dept. getting a vote on for their budget will end in...what, exactly?

You think that when it comes time to vote up or down on almost every single program an depatment that isn't going to end in gridlock? And what happens then? I'll tell you. The ******* money will get allocated anyway in order to keep government functioning. And we'll spend years fighting over those budgets while they are accepted whether or not the vote dictates they receive the funds.

Lastly, it really shows how financially, economically and mathematically challenged people are when they say use a "blank sheet and dont worry about known and often mandated expenditures.

 

[Sallow]

It's called voluntary vs. compulsory.

If you're suggesting that the private sector is even remotely as inefficient as government, you're in worse intellectual shape than I ever imagined.

What exactly is the private sector efficient at? I mean other than making one percent of the population, obscenely rich?

Which private organization did a moon landing?
Which private organization defeated the Nazis?
Which private organization built the Hoover Dam?
Which private organization built the interstate highways?

Private organizations are fine. They are part of our economic model, work okay in distributing goods and services and keep some of the population employed. They are also decent at innovation.

But private organizations have never run or started a country.

And you are welcome to try.

Islands for Sale Worldwide - Private Islands Online

 

[candycorn]

He said he would implement Obama care. He did.
He said he would end our involvement in Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, He has and the conclusion is on schedule.
OBL is dead and GM is alive.

In fact, he has kept/compromised on 69% of his campaign promises:

The Obameter Tracking Obama s Campaign Promises PolitiFact

If he had been less naive about how the GOP in the House was going to treat his agenda, He likely would have scored much higher.

If you get 7 out of 10 things you were promised by your dad, you're upset. If you get 7 out of 10 things you were promised by a politician...that isn't all that bad.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yeah..that Silly Constitution.

You really are in the wrong country.

Saudi Arabia might be more to your liking.

ROFL! Holding up the Constitution is your argument? Really? Now it's unpatriotic to criticize the Post Office?

Here's a clue for you, moron: The Constitution allows the federal government to run the Post Office. It doesn't require it to run the Post Office. It also doesn't require the federal government to grant a legal monopoly to the Post Office.

Even if the Constitution did require the federal government to run the Post Office, that doesn't make it a good idea.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has a government run Post Office, just like the USA.

Your argument couldn't be more wrong, irrelevant or downright stupid.

Except Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.

Which is, to you, is a perfect government.

The rich rule there.

Everyone else? Is fucked.

A perfect government where the rich rule. Really?

Oh, so President Obama and other Democrat politicians have each chosen NOT to place their kids in private schools in FULL support of public education?

Last time I checked, DEMOCRATS were against parents choosing for themselves the best education for their kids ... while Republicans opened the door to "choice" through vouchers. So we have Democrat politicians that are allowed the free luxury opportunity of choice for their kids.

Everyone else? Is fucked.

You do know what non-sequiturs, right? Because you just engaged in one.

But lets get down to brass tacks.

This thread is yet another one of those "code-talking", smoke screens conservatives love to engage in.

The less government, government is corrupt, government is bad thing really just means you don't want "other people" getting stuff you don't think they should have.

And it's generally folks you deem "unworthy".

Meanwhile, folks with much to much are eating your lunch.

Literally.

They are putting up laws to block Democracy from happening, break labor and keep folks stupid. Why? They don't want regulations or taxes..and they want all the marbles.

They very accurately assume we are all like Rats in a cage, content to fight each other.

And for the most part? They are right.

You do know my reply had just moved beyond the smoke and mirrors illusion that Democrats are for the middle class.

Incidentally, the only way to "keep folks stupid" is to put limits on ... or flat out deny them a choice in the QUALITY of education a vast majority of kids can receive. Which, I am so glad to say, I have a liberal who is at least honest enough to place in their reply a greater priority on UNIONS when the discussion was aimed at allowing parents to choose the best education standards for their OWN kids. Again we see the Left's political hero Barack Obama having the ability to afford for his kids what most in the "middle class" can't. Yet, if a party wants to "keep folks stupid" (as you say) why fear the ability of middle class parents the same "priviledges" a president also has ... especially one who makes this "claim" to the American people to be truly compassionate, can relate to and identify with, the needs of the middle class? (Pardon me if I laugh at the very notion).

This "War on Women", as I have already posted, is merely a cry for more greater government freebies, provision , and further dependency ... so career minded women no longer have to earn and provide those needs for themselves.

If the Democrats were honestly speaking for the needs of the middle class, what happened during the large gulf oil spill (for another example)? When those gulf states needed a BOOST in tourism that their summer revenue depended on, where was President Obama? Where did he choose to make the most of HIS vacation? Enjoying the high life and pleasures among the very rich of Martha's Vineyard.

What did those gulf states see of a Democrat Party that speaks of being there and relating to those needs of the middle class?

 

[candycorn]

Yeah..that Silly Constitution.

You really are in the wrong country.

Saudi Arabia might be more to your liking.

ROFL! Holding up the Constitution is your argument? Really? Now it's unpatriotic to criticize the Post Office?

Here's a clue for you, moron: The Constitution allows the federal government to run the Post Office. It doesn't require it to run the Post Office. It also doesn't require the federal government to grant a legal monopoly to the Post Office.

Even if the Constitution did require the federal government to run the Post Office, that doesn't make it a good idea.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has a government run Post Office, just like the USA.

Your argument couldn't be more wrong, irrelevant or downright stupid.

Except Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.

Which is, to you, is a perfect government.

The rich rule there.

Everyone else? Is fucked.

A perfect government where the rich rule. Really?

Oh, so President Obama and other Democrat politicians have each chosen NOT to place their kids in private schools in FULL support of public education?

Last time I checked, DEMOCRATS were against parents choosing for themselves the best education for their kids ... while Republicans opened the door to "choice" through vouchers. So we have Democrat politicians that are allowed the free luxury opportunity of choice for their kids.

Everyone else? Is fucked.

You do know what non-sequiturs, right? Because you just engaged in one.

But lets get down to brass tacks.

This thread is yet another one of those "code-talking", smoke screens conservatives love to engage in.

The less government, government is corrupt, government is bad thing really just means you don't want "other people" getting stuff you don't think they should have.

And it's generally folks you deem "unworthy".

Meanwhile, folks with much to much are eating your lunch.

Literally.

They are putting up laws to block Democracy from happening, break labor and keep folks stupid. Why? They don't want regulations or taxes..and they want all the marbles.

They very accurately assume we are all like Rats in a cage, content to fight each other.

And for the most part? They are right.

You do know my reply had just moved beyond the smoke and mirrors illusion that Democrats are for the middle class.

Incidentally, the only way to "keep folks stupid" is to put limits on ... or flat out deny them a choice in the QUALITY of education a vast majority of kids can receive. Which, I am so glad to say, I have a liberal who is at least honest enough to place in their reply a greater priority on UNIONS when the discussion was aimed at allowing parents to choose the best education standards for their OWN kids. Again we see the Left's political hero Barack Obama having the ability to afford for his kids what most in the "middle class" can't. Yet, if a party wants to "keep folks stupid" (as you say) why fear the ability of middle class parents the same "priviledges" a president also has ... especially one who makes this "claim" to the American people to be truly compassionate, can relate to and identify with, the needs of the middle class? (Pardon me if I laugh at the very notion).

This "War on Women", as I have already posted, is merely a cry for more greater government freebies, provision , and further dependency ... so career minded women no longer have to earn and provide those needs for themselves.

If the Democrats were honestly speaking for the needs of the middle class, what happened during the large gulf oil spill (for another example)? When those gulf states needed a BOOST in tourism that their summer revenue depended on, where was President Obama? Where did he choose to make the most of HIS vacation? Enjoying the high life and pleasures among the very rich of Martha's Vineyard.

What did those gulf states see of a Democrat Party that speaks of being there and relating to those needs of the middle class?

What Utter Bullshit



Republican Joe Barton apologizes to BP
That is what the Gulf States saw from Washington​

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

ROFL! Holding up the Constitution is your argument? Really? Now it's unpatriotic to criticize the Post Office?

Here's a clue for you, moron: The Constitution allows the federal government to run the Post Office. It doesn't require it to run the Post Office. It also doesn't require the federal government to grant a legal monopoly to the Post Office.

Even if the Constitution did require the federal government to run the Post Office, that doesn't make it a good idea.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has a government run Post Office, just like the USA.

Your argument couldn't be more wrong, irrelevant or downright stupid.

Except Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.

Which is, to you, is a perfect government.

The rich rule there.

Everyone else? Is fucked.

A perfect government where the rich rule. Really?

Oh, so President Obama and other Democrat politicians have each chosen NOT to place their kids in private schools in FULL support of public education?

Last time I checked, DEMOCRATS were against parents choosing for themselves the best education for their kids ... while Republicans opened the door to "choice" through vouchers. So we have Democrat politicians that are allowed the free luxury opportunity of choice for their kids.

Everyone else? Is fucked.

You do know what non-sequiturs, right? Because you just engaged in one.

But lets get down to brass tacks.

This thread is yet another one of those "code-talking", smoke screens conservatives love to engage in.

The less government, government is corrupt, government is bad thing really just means you don't want "other people" getting stuff you don't think they should have.

And it's generally folks you deem "unworthy".

Meanwhile, folks with much to much are eating your lunch.

Literally.

They are putting up laws to block Democracy from happening, break labor and keep folks stupid. Why? They don't want regulations or taxes..and they want all the marbles.

They very accurately assume we are all like Rats in a cage, content to fight each other.

And for the most part? They are right.

You do know my reply had just moved beyond the smoke and mirrors illusion that Democrats are for the middle class.

Incidentally, the only way to "keep folks stupid" is to put limits on ... or flat out deny them a choice in the QUALITY of education a vast majority of kids can receive. Which, I am so glad to say, I have a liberal who is at least honest enough to place in their reply a greater priority on UNIONS when the discussion was aimed at allowing parents to choose the best education standards for their OWN kids. Again we see the Left's political hero Barack Obama having the ability to afford for his kids what most in the "middle class" can't. Yet, if a party wants to "keep folks stupid" (as you say) why fear the ability of middle class parents the same "priviledges" a president also has ... especially one who makes this "claim" to the American people to be truly compassionate, can relate to and identify with, the needs of the middle class? (Pardon me if I laugh at the very notion).

This "War on Women", as I have already posted, is merely a cry for more greater government freebies, provision , and further dependency ... so career minded women no longer have to earn and provide those needs for themselves.

If the Democrats were honestly speaking for the needs of the middle class, what happened during the large gulf oil spill (for another example)? When those gulf states needed a BOOST in tourism that their summer revenue depended on, where was President Obama? Where did he choose to make the most of HIS vacation? Enjoying the high life and pleasures among the very rich of Martha's Vineyard.

What did those gulf states see of a Democrat Party that speaks of being there and relating to those needs of the middle class?

What Utter Bullshit



Republican Joe Barton apologizes to BP
That is what the Gulf States saw from Washington​

I was speaking of this "image" that Democrats are for and sympathizes with the middle class. Can you tell me HOW is President Obama going to Martha's Vineyard a true representative of a party who has empathy for and meets those needs of the middle class right where they are at.... particularly among those gulf states in dire need to see a boost in summer tourism revenue that they greatly depend upon?

I didn't think so.

 

[rightwinger]

[

​

I was speaking of this "image" that Democrats are for and sympathizes with the middle class. Can you tell me HOW is President Obama going to Martha's Vineyard a true representative of a party who has empathy for and meets those needs of the middle class right where they are at.... particularly among those gulf states in dire need to see a boost in summer tourism revenue that they greatly depend upon?

I didn't think so.[/QUOTE]


What is "offensive" about going to Martha's Vinyard?

Would Walt Disney World be less offensive?

 

[bendog]

Except Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.

Which is, to you, is a perfect government.

The rich rule there.

Everyone else? Is fucked.

A perfect government where the rich rule. Really?

Oh, so President Obama and other Democrat politicians have each chosen NOT to place their kids in private schools in FULL support of public education?

Last time I checked, DEMOCRATS were against parents choosing for themselves the best education for their kids ... while Republicans opened the door to "choice" through vouchers. So we have Democrat politicians that are allowed the free luxury opportunity of choice for their kids.

Everyone else? Is fucked.

You do know what non-sequiturs, right? Because you just engaged in one.

But lets get down to brass tacks.

This thread is yet another one of those "code-talking", smoke screens conservatives love to engage in.

The less government, government is corrupt, government is bad thing really just means you don't want "other people" getting stuff you don't think they should have.

And it's generally folks you deem "unworthy".

Meanwhile, folks with much to much are eating your lunch.

Literally.

They are putting up laws to block Democracy from happening, break labor and keep folks stupid. Why? They don't want regulations or taxes..and they want all the marbles.

They very accurately assume we are all like Rats in a cage, content to fight each other.

And for the most part? They are right.

You do know my reply had just moved beyond the smoke and mirrors illusion that Democrats are for the middle class.

Incidentally, the only way to "keep folks stupid" is to put limits on ... or flat out deny them a choice in the QUALITY of education a vast majority of kids can receive. Which, I am so glad to say, I have a liberal who is at least honest enough to place in their reply a greater priority on UNIONS when the discussion was aimed at allowing parents to choose the best education standards for their OWN kids. Again we see the Left's political hero Barack Obama having the ability to afford for his kids what most in the "middle class" can't. Yet, if a party wants to "keep folks stupid" (as you say) why fear the ability of middle class parents the same "priviledges" a president also has ... especially one who makes this "claim" to the American people to be truly compassionate, can relate to and identify with, the needs of the middle class? (Pardon me if I laugh at the very notion).

This "War on Women", as I have already posted, is merely a cry for more greater government freebies, provision , and further dependency ... so career minded women no longer have to earn and provide those needs for themselves.

If the Democrats were honestly speaking for the needs of the middle class, what happened during the large gulf oil spill (for another example)? When those gulf states needed a BOOST in tourism that their summer revenue depended on, where was President Obama? Where did he choose to make the most of HIS vacation? Enjoying the high life and pleasures among the very rich of Martha's Vineyard.

What did those gulf states see of a Democrat Party that speaks of being there and relating to those needs of the middle class?

What Utter Bullshit



Republican Joe Barton apologizes to BP
That is what the Gulf States saw from Washington​

I was speaking of this "image" that Democrats are for and sympathizes with the middle class. Can you tell me HOW is President Obama going to Martha's Vineyard a true representative of a party who has empathy for and meets those needs of the middle class right where they are at.... particularly among those gulf states in dire need to see a boost in summer tourism revenue that they greatly depend upon?

I didn't think so.

We don't want him in Mississippi. Seriously.

 

[Sallow]

You do know my reply had just moved beyond the smoke and mirrors illusion that Democrats are for the middle class.

Incidentally, the only way to "keep folks stupid" is to put limits on ... or flat out deny them a choice in the QUALITY of education a vast majority of kids can receive. Which, I am so glad to say, I have a liberal who is at least honest enough to place in their reply a greater priority on UNIONS when the discussion was aimed at allowing parents to choose the best education standards for their OWN kids. Again we see the Left's political hero Barack Obama having the ability to afford for his kids what most in the "middle class" can't. Yet, if a party wants to "keep folks stupid" (as you say) why fear the ability of middle class parents the same "priviledges" a president also has ... especially one who makes this "claim" to the American people to be truly compassionate, can relate to and identify with, the needs of the middle class? (Pardon me if I laugh at the very notion).

This "War on Women", as I have already posted, is merely a cry for more greater government freebies, provision , and further dependency ... so career minded women no longer have to earn and provide those needs for themselves.

If the Democrats were honestly speaking for the needs of the middle class, what happened during the large gulf oil spill (for another example)? When those gulf states needed a BOOST in tourism that their summer revenue depended on, where was President Obama? Where did he choose to make the most of HIS vacation? Enjoying the high life and pleasures among the very rich of Martha's Vineyard.

What did those gulf states see of a Democrat Party that speaks of being there and relating to those needs of the middle class?

What "limits" on education are you talking about?

And President Obama, was probably the first President in the history of the United States to go after an oil company for corporate malfeasance in a way that was really substantial.

That's the thing with Obama. He actually does things. You guys apologized for it.

And then you in your "rebuttal" took a swipe on where he vacations.

 

[Sallow]

A perfect government where the rich rule. Really?

Oh, so President Obama and other Democrat politicians have each chosen NOT to place their kids in private schools in FULL support of public education?

Last time I checked, DEMOCRATS were against parents choosing for themselves the best education for their kids ... while Republicans opened the door to "choice" through vouchers. So we have Democrat politicians that are allowed the free luxury opportunity of choice for their kids.

Everyone else? Is fucked.

You do know what non-sequiturs, right? Because you just engaged in one.

But lets get down to brass tacks.

This thread is yet another one of those "code-talking", smoke screens conservatives love to engage in.

The less government, government is corrupt, government is bad thing really just means you don't want "other people" getting stuff you don't think they should have.

And it's generally folks you deem "unworthy".

Meanwhile, folks with much to much are eating your lunch.

Literally.

They are putting up laws to block Democracy from happening, break labor and keep folks stupid. Why? They don't want regulations or taxes..and they want all the marbles.

They very accurately assume we are all like Rats in a cage, content to fight each other.

And for the most part? They are right.

You do know my reply had just moved beyond the smoke and mirrors illusion that Democrats are for the middle class.

Incidentally, the only way to "keep folks stupid" is to put limits on ... or flat out deny them a choice in the QUALITY of education a vast majority of kids can receive. Which, I am so glad to say, I have a liberal who is at least honest enough to place in their reply a greater priority on UNIONS when the discussion was aimed at allowing parents to choose the best education standards for their OWN kids. Again we see the Left's political hero Barack Obama having the ability to afford for his kids what most in the "middle class" can't. Yet, if a party wants to "keep folks stupid" (as you say) why fear the ability of middle class parents the same "priviledges" a president also has ... especially one who makes this "claim" to the American people to be truly compassionate, can relate to and identify with, the needs of the middle class? (Pardon me if I laugh at the very notion).

This "War on Women", as I have already posted, is merely a cry for more greater government freebies, provision , and further dependency ... so career minded women no longer have to earn and provide those needs for themselves.

If the Democrats were honestly speaking for the needs of the middle class, what happened during the large gulf oil spill (for another example)? When those gulf states needed a BOOST in tourism that their summer revenue depended on, where was President Obama? Where did he choose to make the most of HIS vacation? Enjoying the high life and pleasures among the very rich of Martha's Vineyard.

What did those gulf states see of a Democrat Party that speaks of being there and relating to those needs of the middle class?

What Utter Bullshit



Republican Joe Barton apologizes to BP
That is what the Gulf States saw from Washington​

I was speaking of this "image" that Democrats are for and sympathizes with the middle class. Can you tell me HOW is President Obama going to Martha's Vineyard a true representative of a party who has empathy for and meets those needs of the middle class right where they are at.... particularly among those gulf states in dire need to see a boost in summer tourism revenue that they greatly depend upon?

I didn't think so.

We don't want him in Mississippi. Seriously.

Don't worry.

Nobody wants to be in Mississippi.

Seriously.

 

[bendog]

You do know what non-sequiturs, right? Because you just engaged in one.

But lets get down to brass tacks.

This thread is yet another one of those "code-talking", smoke screens conservatives love to engage in.

The less government, government is corrupt, government is bad thing really just means you don't want "other people" getting stuff you don't think they should have.

And it's generally folks you deem "unworthy".

Meanwhile, folks with much to much are eating your lunch.

Literally.

They are putting up laws to block Democracy from happening, break labor and keep folks stupid. Why? They don't want regulations or taxes..and they want all the marbles.

They very accurately assume we are all like Rats in a cage, content to fight each other.

And for the most part? They are right.

You do know my reply had just moved beyond the smoke and mirrors illusion that Democrats are for the middle class.

Incidentally, the only way to "keep folks stupid" is to put limits on ... or flat out deny them a choice in the QUALITY of education a vast majority of kids can receive. Which, I am so glad to say, I have a liberal who is at least honest enough to place in their reply a greater priority on UNIONS when the discussion was aimed at allowing parents to choose the best education standards for their OWN kids. Again we see the Left's political hero Barack Obama having the ability to afford for his kids what most in the "middle class" can't. Yet, if a party wants to "keep folks stupid" (as you say) why fear the ability of middle class parents the same "priviledges" a president also has ... especially one who makes this "claim" to the American people to be truly compassionate, can relate to and identify with, the needs of the middle class? (Pardon me if I laugh at the very notion).

This "War on Women", as I have already posted, is merely a cry for more greater government freebies, provision , and further dependency ... so career minded women no longer have to earn and provide those needs for themselves.

If the Democrats were honestly speaking for the needs of the middle class, what happened during the large gulf oil spill (for another example)? When those gulf states needed a BOOST in tourism that their summer revenue depended on, where was President Obama? Where did he choose to make the most of HIS vacation? Enjoying the high life and pleasures among the very rich of Martha's Vineyard.

What did those gulf states see of a Democrat Party that speaks of being there and relating to those needs of the middle class?

What Utter Bullshit



Republican Joe Barton apologizes to BP
That is what the Gulf States saw from Washington​

I was speaking of this "image" that Democrats are for and sympathizes with the middle class. Can you tell me HOW is President Obama going to Martha's Vineyard a true representative of a party who has empathy for and meets those needs of the middle class right where they are at.... particularly among those gulf states in dire need to see a boost in summer tourism revenue that they greatly depend upon?

I didn't think so.

We don't want him in Mississippi. Seriously.

Don't worry.

Nobody wants to be in Mississippi.

Seriously.

And you have first hand knowledge of this.

 

[chikenwing]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Great story, but off topic. Was the FDA efficient in banning that drug? "efficient" not "effective". DOD for the most part is effective, but it is never efficient.

Not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to draw between effective and efficient.

You're saying Frances Kelsey spent too much money saying no to Thalidomide?

By the way -- about the nature of these things... Kelsey (who had been at FDA for a total of one month) put up that stop sign in 1960. What do you suppose would be the chances of such a stop sign getting put up in 2014?

Or in recent times at all -- Donald Rumsfeld and Aspartame

This cockamamie portrait of Da Big Bad Gummint as the villain, studiously keeping one's eye off who's pulling its puppet strings, is exactly the dance those puppeteers want to see you doing.

Good puppet. Have a cookie.

I said that was a great story, and a real success. I don't know if the FDA was efficient in that effort or not, do you? Our wonderful government has put US 17 trillion dollars in debt. It has spent 17 trillion dollars more that it has collected. It borrowed much of that from our potential enemies. Is that your definition of efficient?

You're rambling all over the map, dood. "Yeah but" this, "yeah but" that...


Fallacy of Overwhelming Exception:

​

This is classic conservatism.

It's magical thinking.

They believe we can have a top shelf military without taxes.

 

[chikenwing]

This is classic conservatism.

It's magical thinking.

They believe we can have a top shelf military without taxes

Classic bull shit,the only people that say and think that is people like yourself. Show me one true conservative that has said we can have a top notch military without taxes,name just one.
On the contrary,its is classical liberalism that thinks we don't need much of a military,you really should try and keep up with yourself.

 

[bendog]

This is classic conservatism.

It's magical thinking.

They believe we can have a top shelf military without taxes

Classic bull shit,the only people that say and think that is people like yourself. Show me one true conservative that has said we can have a top notch military without taxes,name just one.
On the contrary,its is classical liberalism that thinks we don't need much of a military,you really should try and keep up with yourself.

Didn't W pretend we could finance a war and lower taxes? Didn't he also pretend he'd cut govt, when in fact he expanded it? I just find you attempt at distinguished conservatism from "classical liberalism" overly simplistic. And, you don't know what "classical liberalism" is.

"classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom"

Liberalism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[bripat9643]

That's not a power. It's a legal requirement. Obama swore an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. That includes our immigration laws.

Did you seriously just say that?

Here is the text in reference to both the Postal roads

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Now if you would be so kind, please point me to the section of the cotus requiring the federal government to prevent people from entering this country.

It doesn't, but Congress passed a law requiring the federal government to do so. Obama is required to enforce all the laws Congress passes.

It's hard to believe anyone could be as stupid as you. These are simple concepts that any retard can understand.

Here's a link to the various immigration laws passed by Congress

List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Feel free to show me which laws the federal government is ignoring and not enforcing.

Oh and before you go around calling anyone retarded, maybe you should reread and that that I never said the federal government wasn't required to do anything about illegal immigration. In fact I said the opposite you idiot. I said the federal government is required both to control immigration AND to run the post office.

In your haste to "prove me wrong" you revealed your illiteracy. Now THAT is funny

You're an even bigger moron than I thought. The federal government is required to obey and enforce all laws passed by Congress. Congress is not required to use a power granted by the Constitution. You don't seem to understand the difference between a Constitutional power and a law passed by Congress. The Postal monopoly is legislation passed by Congress. The Constitution does not require Congress to pass legislation.

It's as simple as that, dumbass.

Now go away because I'm tired of instructing you.

Wait what?

Obey?

The government is not a subject of a piece of paper.

The paper outlines how the government operates. It endows that government with powers to fulfill it's functions. Additionally it is not written in stone, is subject to change and for all intents and purposes? Is a work in progress.

The Congress can make laws. And? This is going to blow your mind. It can CHANGE the Constitution. By DESIGN!

The Constitution isn't a bible. It does not recognize religion as supreme over the laws of men.

Your Anarchist/Monarchist dream isn't going to come true here any time soon.

Wrong. Congress cannot change the Constitution unilaterally. The Constitution is changed through the Amendment process. However, sleazy politicians have found ways around that.

Furthermore, your retort is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't even address the issues we've been discussing.

Please have a brain transplant. Otherwise your participation in the forum servers no useful purpose.

 

[chikenwing]

This is classic conservatism.

It's magical thinking.

They believe we can have a top shelf military without taxes

Classic bull shit,the only people that say and think that is people like yourself. Show me one true conservative that has said we can have a top notch military without taxes,name just one.
On the contrary,its is classical liberalism that thinks we don't need much of a military,you really should try and keep up with yourself.

Didn't W pretend we could finance a war and lower taxes? Didn't he also pretend he'd cut govt, when in fact he expanded it? I just find you attempt at distinguished conservatism from "classical liberalism" overly simplistic. And, you don't know what "classical liberalism" is.

"classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom"

Liberalism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy