Addendum: one thing you are forgetting jonboy, and most of these kill the government types forget, as that WE are the government. it is us. it not some seperate entity. or at least it should be (that's a discussion for another day...)

Government BY the People, FOR the People, and OF the People.
The formation of a More Perfect Union.
that's our creedo.
that's our belief and our goal.

So to dismiss the government at all is to in reality reject the notion of people governing themselves together, getting along in relative peace and coexistence, and acting upon the collective will to achieve otherwise unachievable goals.

to dismiss the role of government is really to advocate for a world of anarchy, where the strong are free to prey on the weak, where title, power, privelidge, and strength give dictate ones station in life and give him the ability to dictate to his lessers, a world without freedoms, without liberty, without equality.

essentially, its advocating the undoing of the past 1000 year of civilization and progress.

Except of course for the countries of France, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden...AND THE US...basically the majority of the western world. Again you spread the myth of small government. Again, you wont stop spouting ignorance. In fact the sole purpose, indeed the very DEFINITION, of "government" is a body that represents the collective will of the populace to enact and achieve common goals that are unachievable on any lesser scale.

This is just a short list of what government has done for you:
-roads
-electricity
-computers
-communications (postal, telephone AND internet)-space travel
-national defense
-extended lifespans
-extended standards of living
-navigation (important for trade, and included: Cartography, GIS, surveying, Loran, GPS)
-weather/climate/ocean science (NOAA)
-food safety
-medical research
-product safety

Basically the gist is this: to see life before big government, go back to the 1870s to 1900s...and see how BAD life was with unregulated capitalism. Capitalism is great...except for its self-destructive tendencies. Unregulated capitalism is WHAT LED TO the development and populatrity of communism and rejection of capitalism.

make no mistake, social democracy and its bigger government and regulations, etc, ARE ALSO a response to unregulated capitalism, but rather than a rejection, it's an attempt to harness to positive side of it, and control/negate its negatives tendencies. and the best part is: IT WORKED. we work fewer hours, more productively and in safer work environments, we dont have to work til the day we day, we have more rights and liberties, more control over our destiny, our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, our rivers no longer catch on fire, comapnies aren't free (or less free anyway, in West virginia..) to dump chemicals into the water supply, food is safer to eat, we've gone to space when there was no profit motive, we've created vast netowrks of communication that enable and spread freedom...

basically, the short of it is this: you're an idiot who neither knows what he is talking about, nor appreciates just exactly how good he has it, BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT.

you also apparently know nothing about life in France: they work less and carry a higher standard of living with a comparable median income, with more (mandated) time off from work, lower debt burdens, fewer bankrupties (and NONE from medical bills or school tuition)....

ya. both you and jonboy need to stop spouting ignorance.

ok, again, you clearly know nothing about which you're talking.
Venezuela, again, BAD EXAMPLE.

You keep mentioning France, but you clearly know NOTHING about the place.
France...the average person in France works 30 hours a week, yet earns a median wage comparable to that in the US. they have far more time off as well (in all categories, PTO, sick time, vacation, and maternity/paternity leave). They also carry almost no personal debt, whereas the average american carries between 20 and 80% of their yearly income in debt...not including their home mortgage. healthcare is essentially free, and even the uninsured incur almost no financial burdens. pre-K is universal. college is too.

now you're citing china too....and again, you DONT KNOW what you're talking about. china is NOT capitalistic (apparently you have no clue what the word even means), nor is it an exmaple of "exist-get-paid" (and never was).

you are compeltely and totally clueless on this subject.

on what basis?
there is zero substantive logic to your statement.

if you had any concept of what it actually is you would not have said that thing you said.

we dont have a resource problem.
we have a distribution problem.
and we will continue to do so as long as governments are too scared to do something about it.

and soviet russia and cuba are NOT examples of socialist capitalism. they arent examples of socialism at all. neither are they very good examples of communism, for all that they were labeled "communist".

as for asking France how it's doing...they would tell you they're doing great.
-top notch comprehensive health care, at nearly zero out of pocket expenses (even UNinsured pregancies for foreigners only come to about $500!!)
-free and garunteed college education
-garunteed universal pre-K education for ALL children, starting at age 2
-no bankruptcys from medical bills or school tuition

as would germany, austria, switzerland, england. and they are.
you may as well ask americans how that unregulated capitalism is doing for them...and ask people in both sides of the ocean whether they'd trade places with the other side (hint: americans would, but europeans would NOT)

so kindly take your ignorance and stuff it back in the hole of misinformation you call a mouth

oh goody.

now when some jackass is driving around with the highbeams on, he can blind even more people, from a farther distance.

just what we needed.

Congratulations.
You're an idiot.

1) every statement came from the source article, which you apaprently didnt even bother to read.
2) you left out the 2nd part of that comment, the idea that the studies arent automatically invalid. which is the point: they arent automatically invalid, but because the company's future depends on the outcome, a favorable outcome should be suspect. which is precisely why peer review and corroboration are so important.
3) you missed the point of the last statement. Yes, more long term studies need to be done. But the point was the EPA told the company with a financial stake in the outcomes to do it. THAT IS THE POINT. the EPA effectively straddled the fence, making a weak gesture that wont offend the giant company. they should have directed an independent lab to do the study.

i agree with you mostly, but i would dispute the notion that we are better off.

the economy is better off. in deed, it's never been better. Unemployment is back to the lowest levels since before the recession, stocks and investments have never been higher, nearly all the classic indicators are in the best shape they've ever been in. except for one thing: most folks dont think the economy is doing that great...and for them personally, it's NOT.

its a paradox, but its completely true: the economy is in the best shape its been in for years, and yet for most folks its the same as it's been since during or right after the recession.

the reason? because of the most disturbing statistic of all: nearly all the gains made during and since hte recession have gone to the infamous 1%.

so they not only profited off the recession, they effectively captured nearly the entire recovery.

"perception is reality", and while the economy is great, the right gets to make hay out of most folks having not fully recovered yet because for them, it hasn't, and they blame the president cause they dont any better. which of course plays right into the Koch brothers goals: they effectively get to eat their cake and have it too.

Timeline:
Company has a pesticide, second in use only to Monsanto's roundup.
Concerns begin to grow about the chemicals effect
Scientist is hired by company to join panel of scientists evaluating chemical
Scientist notes that frogs are being born hermaphroditic, or with multiple (excess) malformes testes.
Scientist begins to feel uncofortable, held back, and pressured at company
Scientist leaves, returns to university lab, and replicates experiment, getting same results
Scientists presents findings to company again
Company disputes findings as flawed, by using flawed arguments
Scientist is warned to be paranoid because giant companies with billions in revenue have no problem squashing annoying bugs (pun intended)
Company begins smear campaign against inconvenient scientist, buying search terms, following him, harassing him
EPA holds hearings
17+ studies are presented.
12 from the company, all show no effect on frogs
Scientist presents his fidnings, showing effects on frogs
Other independent scientists present findings, corroborating the scientists findings
Company settles class lawsuit, where details about its smear campaign come out

Sorry, there's more here than just someone trying to get famous.
Essentially ANY STUDY done by a company with a financial stake in the result, showing the outcome the comapny favors must be considered suspect.

Logically, it isnt automatically (100% certainty) invalid...but historically they have consistently been invalid more often than not,as companies attempt to buy out the scientists and fund fraudulent studies. Tobacco is the most famous example.

And btw, when the hearings were over? The EPA proposed further study must be done...and told the company with a finanical stake in the outcome to do it.

on the contrary. sobriety checkpoints absolutely should be allowed. your sterotype of what a drunk does while driving is actually not representitive, and not sufficient in deterrence. reliance solely your method of capture simply does not work as a method of enforcement.

that's not to say all sobriety checkpoints are well executed or well planned. a proper checkpoint is at a natural chokepoint in travel for folks going from Point A (a bar or other establishment reliant on alcohol) to B (usually home). but lets remember that drunk driving kills over 11000 people yearly, which is one third of all traffic deaths. costs to the economy of over 50 billion dollars annually just in wrecks. the additional costs in lost labor, lost jobs, bankrupties, and lawyer fees arent known.

essentially there is no 4th violation in this. there is nothing to take back. you have no valid claim here. the public interest in preventing deaths and accidents from drunk driving is simply so overwhleming, and the courts agree. there is no better way to catch and prevent drunk driving.

you have no case. you might as well argue that speed traps (cop ons ide of the road) constitutes an unreasonable search since he's efectively tagging everyone who goes by (and yes people ahve tried to claim that, and no, that also doesn't fly in court).

bingo.

a lot of speed traps are simply revenue generating gotchas. but not all of them! some places are legitimate safety hazards and keeping a cop there to get people to slow down is perfectly reasonable. also there are those individuals, we see them every day at rush hour, who given the chance WILL drive recklessly and at excessive speed,and those people are a hazard, and there is a public interest in preventing them from causing wrecks with their recklessness. and the cop sitting on the side of the rode with a radar gun helps keep them in check. that said, flashing your lights basically acheives the same goal, of slowing people down. no problem

but catching drunks? nope. totally a valid public interest in preventing that. drunk driving is a very hazardous thing, killing thousands of people a year. and i would disagree very much with the idea of warning drunks so they dont get caught. that's very much against the public interest, and very much enabling dangerous, reckless behaviour that WILL get someone hurt.

key word: unreasonable.
preventing drunk drivers from driving is not unreasonable and is a VERY valid state and public interest.
there really isnt any good argument in support of protecting drunk drivers from being caught.

sorry, but this has been covered already in higher threads and you are wrong on almost all points.