the people who are supposed to check on oil rigs and make sure nothing bad happens are absolutely incompetent

Well, that's not entirely true. They're actually quite competent...they just work for the oil companies and thus their opinions are drowned out by the "cha-ching" sound the executives eyes make. GW made absolutely sure there was no one who would slow down an oil operation anywhere in the gubment. And, yes, the spineless coward Dems aren't any better. Time to stop throwing our votes away on the two major parties!

Just make a limited government like the framers of the US constitution were planning and the majority of real issues go away.

Not trying to be a troll, but I hear things like this all the time. Do you have a citation for this claim that they were trying to make a "limited" government? Can you define "limited" government? Are you talking size or power? How do you think this could be accomplished now with the entrenched government we have now? Since the US is firmly divided along the artificial lines of red v. blue, side which contain radically different ideas of how a government should exist, how do you propose to unite the populace behind this dream?

Democracy leads to mob rule no matter how carefully you plan it. A limited government using democracy leads to peace and prosperity. But the point is, the government has to be very limited to prevent abuses.

Do you have an example of one of these limited democracies and that they had successfully achieved peace and prosperity?

Take for instance gay marriage, if your neighbor is gay does that make you gay? If you are gay and your neighbor is straight does that make you less gay? The very idea of taking something that shouldn't be a government problem and making it into an issue in elections is simply the tyranny of the majority, and I don't think that meta-government or any other solution other than limited government would prevent these things because these issues are becoming more and more common.

Well, you're forgetting those that are raised to believe that being gay is a) a choice and b) an evil choice brought about by influence of the devil to corrupt you and those around you and get you to molest children and undermine the moral fabric of the country and...so on. Since we have freedom of religion in the US, you can't stomp on these people's rights in order to grant special rights to those who CHOOSE to hate God's America and everything it stands for, can you? Aren't you now advocating forcing your beliefs on them?

BTW, as an atheist, my last statement is playing devil's advocate...no pun intended. As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a contract between two individuals wherein each party grants certain rights to the other and certain responsibilities are imparted to each as well. Those rights and responsibilities should be impartable without the need of a marriage ceremony. If you want to have a big church ceremony after you sign your contracts and revel in the fact that you're blessed to not be gay, have fun. It's no longer a requirement.

There are a ton of rights that the government, and by extension the people, should have no say in your exercise of them. The freedom of your own body, to do whatever you wish to it without harming others is a basic right.

Certainly. The two most common causes that champion such notions are legalization of drugs and pro-choicers. We'll table legalization of drugs, but pro-choice has a different set of issues. Again, to those that are raised to believe that a freshly fertilized zygote is a living human being (despite their religion actually saying otherwise), abortion is murder pure and simple. We don't tolerate murder of humans you can see, why would we allow murder of those you don't? You cannot alter that definition without abrogating their right to wallow in their own ignorance and once you've done so...you're arguing for what you're arguing against.

The right to free expression is a basic right. The right to own property, to engage in business, and to be entitled to the fruit of your labors are all basic rights too. These things should have no government involvement and by extension democracy should not violate them.

And, for all intents and purposes, the government currently doesn't. We should be wary of that changing, of course.

I would think if someone went into the medical field that it really wouldn't be against their will.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I think all people should have access to technology that would make them immortal.

Sigh

Hmmm...let's go with: enough to keep you alive. You're saying people shouldn't have access to that?

Not the mad mod of which you speak, but I'm not sure I understand: are you saying people don't have a right to have access to adequate and effective health care regardless of income or employment level?

Interesting view you have of unions...sounds exactly like the one espoused by Faux News. So, tell me: exactly how did the unions take the auto industry down? Did they decide, in a market that's growing increasingly cost and environmentally conscious to not build cars that met those criteria? Sounds like a management decision to me. When your total payroll costs are X amount, but the amount of your losses each year is almost 3X, you think there might be something else causing your losses? When the unions take over management of their people's benefits packages, thus reducing your overall operating costs for that facet of your business by about 80%, how exactly are they costing you more? Perhaps you believe the flawed "auto workers make $50/hour for polishing mirrors" meme?

But, on to the next topic: airline safety and unions...this is a new one, I have to be honest. But, as someone who has a couple of close friends who work for airlines, I was amused to find out, for example, that limiting the size and number of carry-ons was a push by the unions, not to mention exit lights (which the airline management decided was a useless waste of money). Pilots are looking to unionize because, frankly, they're worked like dogs with very little rest. Some have even fallen asleep on the job. Now it's easy to say "well, then, do go to work tired". Of course, when your only real option "don't go to work", it fails to pay the bills.

Finally, the teachers: are you saying the SOLE reason the educational system is a failure is due to the teachers? You're going to exclude government mandates, like the always favorite "No Child Left Behind" which was put in place specifically to make the educational system fail (I honestly admit I cannot find any other reason such a flawed pile of shit could have been passed)? You're going to exclude the fact that we don't have a single, unifying educational system, but one made up of 50 state systems, uncountable municipal systems and an overarching Federal system. In the right conjunctions, they don't contradict each other, or work against each other. Fortunately, those conjunctions aren't rare right now, but they are getting rarer (as in the case of the Texas school board's decision to cease teaching reality). Finally, what about parents? The #1 gauge of a child's long-term success in the school system has always been and continues to be, the parents...their involvement, their financial status, their marital status, etc...A child that has a parent at home to work with them every night doesn't need as fantastic a teacher during the day...but, so many folks want to be career-oriented first, family second, so the kids get the short shrift. But, hey, at least my folks TRY to make it to every soccer game, right?

It's easy to simply go with the flawed mentality that fits your mood. What is hard is doing the critical thinking and research it takes to be an informed member of society. It's apparent that you lack the ability to do the latter. Fortunately, it's never too late to learn. You should look into it.

I'm an atheist, and I approve this comment.

Not to mention the blind followers of those who deny Man Made Global Warming.

He made one demonstrably incorrect statement in this thread. I've dealt with him before.

Such an adorable zealot you are.

Hmmmm...well, I hadn't followed the case that closely, so was unaware it had even gone to court in the US. In reviewing some of the criticisms of the case, though, it looks like the appeal is well needed. In the case of Chevron, I suppose I can reserve judgment until I do some further research.

Well, that of course excludes Coca-Cola who assassinated union leaders in Columbia, or Chevron who hired a private militia in Nigeria to fire on protesters outside their plant or DeBeers who fund private armies to protect their diamond monopolies, or...yeah, who am I kidding, facts never change the mind of a zealot...

Well, let's see...according to this study in The Lancet, approximately 5 million people die/year from smoking. Since your timespan is over the last 100 years, 100 x 5 million = 500,000,000. Granted, the 5 million number probably wasn't consistent throughout the whole of the 100 year span you're proposing, but corporations still win in a landslide.

And, before you reply how I know you're going to reply: the link between smoking and lung cancer was first identified in 1920. The addictive nature of nicotine's been known to the tobacco companies since at least 1970. That gives you 20 million and 450 million deaths just from the tobacco companies who knowingly marketed lethal products depending on when exactly you want to place the blame on them. We can also include DeBeers (responsible for countless deaths over the last 140 years financing insurgencies and wars in order to secure their diamond monopoly), Monsanto (responsible for over 50 superfund sites in the US that have contaminated and poisoned individuals in the area), Chevron (who dumped 18 billion gallons of toxins into rivers used by communities in the Amazon resulting in cancer, birth defects, etc), Pfizer (who sells AIDS drugs at higher prices in areas where AIDS is most prevalent and least likely to be able to afford to purchase the medication), Nestlé (melanine in Chinese baby milk), WalMart (child labor in hazerdous conditions), Coca-Cola (assassinations of union folks in Columbia), and Dow (leading manufacturer of chemical weapons) if you like.

Language is about communication, it's not about the RULES of grammar. Yes, we have arbitrarily decided rules as to what gets an apostrophe and how things are spelled and so on...failing to follow this rule or that at any given time doesn't often hinder the communication. If someone says to me "pimipin' ain't easy", I get what they said. I don' t need them make sure they put the "g" on the end or use "isn't" instead of "ain't". Thanks to my abhorently abusive Catholic school education, I still cringe when I see someone's written "Thank's for shopping at our store's!", but I don't feel the need to correct them. That would just be douchey. You know...like these two guys.