The Nanny State Strikes Again

Fox News ^ | 12/26/03 | William A. Niskanen

[Luis Gonzalez]

Here's the problem with our "discussion".

I approach this site as a place to learn and understand how government works, what motivates politicians, and what methods they use to enact legislation.

The rest of you want some place to bitch, and to call anyone who doesn't bitch right along with you a bunch of names.

If I manage to learn enough, I may actually learn how to impact my government, and influence politicians.

You will just improve your typing speed...if you're lucky.

To sit around here and complaint that the government is doing things in a way that you do not agree with, or interpreting the Constitution differently than you are, gets you absolutely no where, and gets zero results, the people at DC have obviously figured out a way to get these things done.

I have promoted nothing, I have simply pointed out how the Feds promote and DO these things...for doing that, for actually trying to understand how they get things done, you Neanderthals keep calling me names.

I'll make you a wager.

You continue bitching and calling names, while I continue striving to learn how they get things done in DC.

I bet you that of the two of us, I will have more of a chance of actually impacting politics, than you ever will.

[Fred Mertz]

Perhaps you have lived too long under communism and do not even realize that your expectations are for the state to care for all of us at the expense of the other person.

I believe that may help explain most of Luis' left leaning views.

[NutCrackerBoy]

To sit around here and complain that the government is doing things in a way that you do not agree with, or interpreting the Constitution differently than you are, gets you absolutely nowhere.

Advocacy can get you somewhere. I advocate limited government as the Constitution was intended to provide. Labeling activist legislation as socialism is not an emotional tirade. Socialism is a word; it means something; it refers accurately to things that our government does.

There is still strong resistance in this country, even among some liberals, against becoming a cradle-to-grave nanny state. One facet of that resistance is discussion of the Constitution. I have no doubt there is more animated discussion of what the Constitution means here than at any other political discussion web forum.

At the same time, it pains me to say, I can see some logic in Mineta's federal approach to the mandatory seat belt situation. This President, to fulfill expectations and be reelected, must govern according to the tools and current practices available. Many of the socialist measures he has instigated are pretty well focused on a problem and solution space.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"This President, to fulfill expectations and be reelected, must govern according to the tools and current practices available."

Someone gets it.

Kudos.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hey Freddy!

Got a date for tomorrow night yet?

It's not to call your local Fab Five fan club to find one!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Here's your amigo again, adding substance to the discourse.

He's not the "victim" you promote him to be...is he?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

Mate, all that will happen is that you will become more adversarial and more embittered. You'll find you'll be logging onto FR in a combative mood, and spend most of your time thinking up crueller zingers to post. We'll find less and less of the insights and drollery we've come to expect from your posts. The place will end up being unsatisfying for you and eventually you'll come to think FR's not worth the conflict and you'll spend extended periods in absence from a place you used to enjoy. It's happened to many a poster, myself included, and it's just not worth the trouble. Don't worry about Fred or TLB or what people post on other websites. JR doesn't. All the best for 2004, Byron

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Mate, all that will happen is that you will become more adversarial and more embittered. You'll find you'll be logging onto FR in a combative mood, and spend most of your time thinking up crueller zingers to post. We'll find less and less of the insights and drollery we've come to expect from your posts. The place will end up being unsatisfying for you and eventually you'll come to think FR's not worth the conflict and you'll spend extended periods in absence from a place you used to enjoy. It's happened to many a poster, myself included, and it's just not worth the trouble."

Filing under "some of the best advice I received in 2003", I'm almost there now...thanks.

Best to you and yours.

[Eastbound]

. . . .we needed to elect more fiscally conservative people."

I would have to add, those who would demonstrate their commitment and willingness to restore the Charter of our nation and honor their oath of office.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I would have to add, those who would demonstrate their commitment and willingness to restore the Charter of our nation and honor their oath of office."

Little goals.

I run a multi-million dollar a year sales territory, part of a Fortune 500 company listed among the top 20 in the U.S. for the particular industry...and I don't think that there are any bigger industries than the one I work in the world.

As part of the interview that I put all perspective reps through, I throw out a whole lot of questions about goals.

I never hire the individuals who do not set realistic goals...little goals as I call them.

I am an incrementalist because I have seen incrementalism at work in my job, in my government, and in my personal life.

Throwing out a top-loaded statement like yours, and mind you, it SOUNDS wonderful and very patriotic, tells me nothing.

Yours is an undefined goal, or rather, one that leaves itself open to definition.

And that's where we always run into trouble, we conservatives, and why we get frustrated; we set goals that cannot possibly be reached within a reasonable amount of time, and beyond that, we assume that the other guy's definition of restoring the charter of our nation, and honoring their oath of office, will always match ours. It rarely does.

The first little goal we should set for ourselves, is to place sufficient people in the Senate to get Bush's nominees to the Federal Courts confirmed.

The second goal, is to not allow the Democrats back in office in 2008.

[Eastbound]

I'm going to bookmark this and come back to it in late '04.

Concerning your reference to " . . . my government . . .", It is encouraging to know that other nations are adopting the American ideal. I know you will succeed, but you will need to pay equal attention to the little guy with the little goals. They are the conscience of your country.

Concerning the democrat party, I believe it has morphed into a criminal enterprise, is a blight upon American politics, and is a clear and present danger to the U.S.A.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"My government" is the government of my home, the government headed by George W. Bush.

Which government do you think I was referring to?

[Eastbound]

""My government" is the government of my home, the government headed by George W. Bush."

It appears we are working from two different scripts.

My government is the U.S. Constitution, a permanent installation, managed by those transitory representatives we elect to implement and preserve it in a faithful manner as a service to the people.

It sounded there for a moment that your government was more exclusive than that. I think we are talking about the same 'government,' though I found it anomolous for a citizen to call it 'my' government when talking to another Citizen. That's like one child saying 'MY' mother when speaking to a sibling. I'm sure you understand the nuance. In truth, I was pulling your leg and you responded appropriately. I trust you have a sense of humor. ;>

I'm sure our scripts will converge at some point, and in the meantime, I offer the following link for your consideration:

Congress and the Constitution