Edit: Notice I say State Control. Not State Regulation. Understand the difference?

Okay, then what do you mean with state control?

I am a union member. Have been in many shops..., ...don't break the bank look at Detroit for that example for both private sector and government unions. When a real balance has not been reached you get things like Detroit.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Control: Controls something such as a country or an organization, they have the power to take all the important decisions about the way it is run.

NEVER give The State that much power. If it goes bad...

Regulation: Less invasive to Freedom. IE: Regulate safe food production, not control what foods people eat, as in State Control (sound familiar?)

Ehm, well you realize that all states 'control' to some degree what happens in the country. A states sole function is to take all the important decisions about the way its run. The only difference is the degree of control. And regulation is a way of controlling. By regulating something like food safety I can still control what people eat or don't eat, the only difference is that it happens in a soft handed manner.

The real guardian of freedom is not whether a government has a small or large degree of control over the country, its the strength of the rule of law. You can have a country where a state has a large degree of control over a lot of things, but where everything is also neatly transcribed in laws and the government holds itself to its own laws (Sweden) and you can have a country where the government has almost no control over nothing but where lawlessness reigns or where the government doesn't hold itself to its own laws, so the government can do whatever it likes anyways (failed states). And you have of course countries with little control but where the government is bound by laws and sticks to them (thankfully such examples do not really exist) and you have countries that have a large degree of control but ignore their own laws (pretty much every dictatorship ever).

The thing is, its really not so bad to live in a country where the government plays a large role but also sticks to its own rules. Sure, you have less direct freedom, but generally the government also provides you with a lot of extra services. And a country where the government has little control and is bound by law to keep it that way would be a hell for most people as the lack of government control is certainly compensated though control from non-government organizations. There is always a trade off that you gotta keep in mind.

Control: Controls something such as a country or an organization, they have the power to take all the important decisions about the way it is run.

NEVER give The State that much power. If it goes bad...

Regulation: Less invasive to Freedom. IE: Regulate safe food production, not control what foods people eat, as in State Control (sound familiar?)

Ehm, well you realize that all states 'control' to some degree what happens in the country. A states sole function is to take all the important decisions about the way its run. The only difference is the degree of control. And regulation is a way of controlling. By regulating something like food safety I can still control what people eat or don't eat, the only difference is that it happens in a soft handed manner.

The real guardian of freedom is not whether a government has a small or large degree of control over the country, its the strength of the rule of law. You can have a country where a state has a large degree of control over a lot of things, but where everything is also neatly transcribed in laws and the government holds itself to its own laws (Sweden) and you can have a country where the government has almost no control over nothing but where lawlessness reigns or where the government doesn't hold itself to its own laws, so the government can do whatever it likes anyways (failed states). And you have of course countries with little control but where the government is bound by laws and sticks to them (thankfully such examples do not really exist) and you have countries that have a large degree of control but ignore their own laws (pretty much every dictatorship ever).

The thing is, its really not so bad to live in a country where the government plays a large role but also sticks to its own rules. Sure, you have less direct freedom, but generally the government also provides you with a lot of extra services. And a country where the government has little control and is bound by law to keep it that way would be a hell for most people as the lack of government control is certainly compensated though control from non-government organizations. There is always a trade off that you gotta keep in mind.

Such as medicare :)

Such as medicare :)

What about medicare?

---

I doubt any of them understand anything other then what has been spoon fed them in university.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I doubt any of them understand anything other then what has been spoon fed them in university.

Oh ID, this is such a wonderful statement.

I will be quoting you endlessly on this one. I think Alanis Morissette could write a whole album based on this one statement.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I doubt any of them understand anything other then what has been spoon fed them in university.

Oh ID, this is such a wonderful statement.

I will be quoting you endlessly on this one. I think Alanis Morissette could write a whole album based on this one statement.

You're very welcome.

Try these two, too...

The Constitution is controled anarchy, just barely, as was the intent of our Founders.

Statutum tempus Lex of Deus est a Donum. Donum attero nisi a speculum of lex of Deus, in terra
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am also fond of this one...

You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body. C.S. Lewis

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Crude translation:
The statute of the time of the Law of God is a gift. The gift of waste, except from the mirror of the law of God in the land of

(I would assume that there is a bit missing off the end, possibly the last phrase should read something like:
"terra autem de libera" (the land of the free)


Hmm, who said that the US constitution wasn't "god based"?

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

You know, I'd like to say..."Nice job.". But I just can't find it in me. I think you understand. It's not like I have hidden my feelings. It's not like I have a hidden agenda. I have been very forthright.

It is likely you haven't met a real man in sometime. I am 'Ordinary people'.

We're all ordinary, some people are just more ordinary than others?

---

Reality Internet Personality

You know, I'd like to say..."Nice job.". But I just can't find it in me. I think you understand. It's not like I have hidden my feelings. It's not like I have a hidden agenda. I have been very forthright.

It is likely you haven't met a real man in sometime. I am 'Ordinary people'.

We're all ordinary, some people are just more ordinary than others?

I agree 101%! LMAO!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

You know, I'd like to say..."Nice job.". But I just can't find it in me. I think you understand. It's not like I have hidden my feelings. It's not like I have a hidden agenda. I have been very forthright.

It is likely you haven't met a real man in sometime. I am 'Ordinary people'.

We're all ordinary, some people are just more ordinary than others?

Of course:) It's the 'deranged' people that make life interesting though:) (prettig gestoord, eccentric,...)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Crude translation:
The statute of the time of the Law of God is a gift. The gift of waste, except from the mirror of the law of God in the land of

(I would assume that there is a bit missing off the end, possibly the last phrase should read something like:
"terra autem de libera" (the land of the free)


Hmm, who said that the US constitution wasn't "god based"?

You know, I'd like to say..."Nice job.". But I just can't find it in me. I think you understand. It's not like I have hidden my feelings. It's not like I have a hidden agenda. I have been very forthright.

It is likely you haven't met a real man in sometime. I am 'Ordinary people'.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It is likely you haven't met a real man in sometime. I am 'Ordinary people'.

A real man would have surely woken up to the fact that until Intelligent Design is actually proven, hold off on forcing his views on others & wait patiently to be able to come back and state "I told you so".

A real man would not constantly shove his personal beliefs down the throats of others in the manner you do.

A real man would accept the fact that he is not alone in the world & that others like him have their own views & beliefs & debate in a sensible manner.

So, when can we expect to see you act like a real man?

---

It is likely you haven't met a real man in sometime. I am 'Ordinary people'.

A real man would have surely woken up to the fact that until Intelligent Design is actually proven, hold off on forcing his views on others & wait patiently to be able to come back and state "I told you so".

A real man would not constantly shove his personal beliefs down the throats of others in the manner you do.

A real man would accept the fact that he is not alone in the world & that others like him have their own views & beliefs & debate in a sensible manner.

So, when can we expect to see you act like a real man?

A real man wouldn't feel the need to go around telling people he's a real man.

---

Reality Internet Personality

It is likely you haven't met a real man in sometime. I am 'Ordinary people'.

A real man would have surely woken up to the fact that until Intelligent Design is actually proven, hold off on forcing his views on others & wait patiently to be able to come back and state "I told you so".

A real man would not constantly shove his personal beliefs down the throats of others in the manner you do.

A real man would accept the fact that he is not alone in the world & that others like him have their own views & beliefs & debate in a sensible manner.

So, when can we expect to see you act like a real man?

A real man wouldn't feel the need to go around telling people he's a real man.

+1!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Crude translation:
The statute of the time of the Law of God is a gift. The gift of waste, except from the mirror of the law of God in the land of

(I would assume that there is a bit missing off the end, possibly the last phrase should read something like:
"terra autem de libera" (the land of the free)


Hmm, who said that the US constitution wasn't "god based"?

You know, I'd like to say..."Nice job.". But I just can't find it in me. I think you understand. It's not like I have hidden my feelings. It's not like I have a hidden agenda. I have been very forthright.

It is likely you haven't met a real man in sometime. I am 'Ordinary people'.

A real man wouldn't go throwing accusations without evidence.
A real man would offer apologies if he did something wrong.

A real man who gives his word, keeps it.

A real man stands on his convictions, and never wavers.

A real man is moral, not ethical.

I understand these things are something most of you have never seen before.

You have now.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

A real man is moral, not ethical.

ID are you saying a real man does not need ethics?

---

A real man is moral, not ethical.

ID are you saying a real man does not need ethics?

Some examples of fine moral thinking.
Tablet: Thou shall not kill
RCC: Crusades
AlQ: 9/11

Tablet: Thou shall not bear false witness.
RCC: Inquisition

Tablet: Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife.
RCC: Virginity exams.
RCC: Pedophile Priests.

Tablet: Thou shall not steal.
IS: Run Palestinians off for Jewish settlement.

Now the sudden feeling of disgust you have, that is ethics. The fact of the things is morals.
Which do you prefer?



The problem with morals is they are not self discovered but a list handed to you. Lists, like tablets, can be ignored. It is much harder to ignore your own truth.

But the dictionary says:

ethics: plural noun
1 [ usu. treated as pl. ] moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior: Judeo-Christian ethics.
• the moral correctness of specified conduct: the ethics of euthanasia.
2 [ usu. treated as sing. ] the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
Schools of ethics in Western philosophy can be divided, very roughly, into three sorts. The first, drawing on the work of Aristotle, holds that the virtues (such as justice, charity, and generosity) are dispositions to act in ways that benefit both the person possessing them and that person's society. The second, defended particularly by Kant, makes the concept of duty central to morality: humans are bound, from a knowledge of their duty as rational beings, to obey the categorical imperative to respect other rational beings. Thirdly, utilitarianism asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number.

Which makes them interchangeable. I'm sure ID will disagree. But I would ask him if these fine examples of religious morals in action are ethical? Or more importantly are they "right?"

---