socialindependocrat
socialindependocrat's JournalIt does cost extra tax dollars
and I would think that one SWAT team for multiple communities
would be sufficient.
Since it does cost tax dollars it would be nice if the police
poll the community to see what their view of the need vs.
want is. The police seem to say - We have decided that
there is a NEED and they go out and spend the money and
then raise taxes. There will be no end to the "toys" that
these people want/need.
I am against spending tax payer's money in order to increase
revenue (eg. , intersection cameras). If they want the intersection
to be safer they should increase the time for the yellow or put up a
countdown indicator like they have on the crosswalks now. That way
you would know how many seconds are left to get thru the light. If
there are only 2-3 seconds you know to stop at the light. -Simple-
BUT - it reduces revenue - NO, we can't possibly do that!
AND why would we want to?
(because you're there to PROTECT the people, stupid!)
The failure of the logic
Just because the government or king was messing up the ability of the common folk to
better themselves by having restrictive regulations it was a different situation. Today people
have grown their businesses so large that they are powerful enough to cheat their employees
out of rightful wages and benefits. This is why we need regulation today - So that the robber
baron doesn't abuse his workers.
Not ducking the tough calls is great as long as the person making the decisions has the intelligence
to make a balanced decision and not make the decision to continue to take money from the
middle class and give it to the wealthy who will only invest the money in order to make more money
at the cost of making it difficult for the middle class to have the discretionary funds to buy goods
from the businesses that keeps the economy going.
Lastly, families are made up of parents and children. The parents teach the children to grow up to be
caring and responsible adults who will grow up to contribute to society. There are children that need
to be adopted and because of this the parents don't need to participate in natural childbirth in order
to create a family. If that were the case then, women and men who were together but could not
create a child for one reason or another and adopted a child would not be considered a family.
You spew a lot of points in order to prove the point you wish to make at the expense of muddling
the facts and disproving the argument you wish to support.
That's why our society grows in it's thinking and it's laws - Because thinking becomes outmoded
when new situations prove that the old logic is flawed.
There is a line - If you can propose something without proof then you can negate it without proof.
Something like that - anyway.
I was watching all those people at the Vatican and they all had this look
of accomplishment and relief on their faces because a new pope was chosen.
Then I thought of all those people spending time praying and giving money to the church.
Then I thought, what is the difference between that and throwing a virgin into a volcano?
And you're right - that's just an opinion - but, religion is just an opinion, too.
The biggest waste I see right now are the people in the middle east who are killing each
other because they have some religious belief. They suppress women. They rape and
they blow themselves up and they even offer to pay money to kill people that make
cartoons using their religious leaders likeness.
It gets to a point where I can't see the sense of supporting the whole institution.
There is a thought that if we take all the money that is spent on war that we will be able to
feed all the poor in the world. Apply that same idea to the money given to all the religions of the world.
I would be willing to bet that the religions pull in more money that the war machines.
If people want to go to church it is their right to do so.
The same goes for those people who want to vote Republican't
Same idea but one or both ideas piss a lot of people off.
What's the answer?
Live and let live?
What goes on in the U.S. stays in the U.S. - Tough shit U.N.
As long as we don't export, what the heck.
We did a lot of "Respect for Women" seminars at work in the U.S.
which were quite successful but when we went to the U.K. to
promote the seminars they didn't see the need because they had
no problems over there.
If we are limited in our country's evolution by less progressive
countries we'll be living in the dark ages for hundreds of years to come.
Our mental evolution takes long enough as it is. Next we'll have to listen
to the middle-east tell us that we can't wear sleeveless t-shirts over here!
Aren't we the ones who are supposed to set an example for the rest of the world?
They can evolve with us or choose not - but they can't tell us how to vote and
what laws we decide to change.
It takes a college professor to get the point across....
I think that for every piece of legislature we need a group of professors to get together and hash out the pros and cons of the issue and then present a class to congress to filll them in on the main points of the issue.
We hire these asshats and they spew off for hours and get each other so confused that they
forget what the main issue is.
Then we can have a moderator (another professor or two or three) to oversee the congressional arguments and the moderators can point out the illogic and incorrect assumptions that are being
introduced to try and confuse the argument.
This will take more time but, at least, the process will move forward and the moronic illogic will be called
to attention and dealt with in stead of being allowed to fester in some idiot's brain as "the truth" and
the facts will be clearer to all.
We need to stop idiots from saying stupid things without anyone calling them on it!
It just confuses everyone and nothing ever gets accomplished.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jun 23, 2011, 08:41 PMNumber of posts: 1,372
