Stupid - Stupid - Stupid

252 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
New regulations will stop kids from doing farm chores.

Can't round up cattle on horseback as you might fall off. Can't do physical labor like lifting hay bales as you might get hurt. Can't operate farm equipment as it might be dangerous. I've seen stupid regulations in the past few years - but this one takes the cake.

I've never seen a govt action that runs as counter to the American lifestyle as this new set of regulations.

Let's not do anything to build a work ethic in our kids. Let's turn farm kids into the same lard butts as those who sit watching TV every day in town.

The reason schools run 9 months in the U.S. - is because it was always assumed kids were busy working on family farms during the growing season. Now, in this entitlement society - we say your kid can't do chores?

Family farms are a family activity. Everyone plays a part in keeping things running and getting crops in. This sounds like an attempt to destroy what's left of family farms.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/ru...g-farm-chores/
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I hear you.


    Let's also make sure we don't go back to the days of really abusive child labor.


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6125972].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
    I read that yesterday and still can't wrap my head around the fact we actually have people in DC with jobs that allow them to come up with ridiculous kind of crap....
    Signature
    Professional Googler
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6125978].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
      It is worse in the UK for stupid rules. This crops up in the UK on a regular basis.

      US has a population of 400m and has 100 Senators.

      UK has a population of 65m and has 650 MPs (Members of Parliament)

      Why is there an abundance of stupid rules? Too many people with time on their hands.

      Dan
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126100].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        I spent many of my growing up years on a large farm. I didn't share a lot of labor as I was a favored grandchild but I pitched in because I wanted to.

        My cousins who lived on an adjoining farm regular worked hard running tractors and combines and plows. We all moved bales of hay and took care of livestock.

        Farm life is not easy - there's a lot of work to do. But the idea that it's "child labor" is ridiculous. When everyone works on a farm - everyone eats. For many farms, it's that simple.

        In my opinion we need to get away from the welfare and protection mentality and get back to work ethics in this country. You want self esteem? Do a job well and you'll be proud of yourself.

        You want to stay slim? Work hard out in the heat several days a week and you can eat all you want without gaining weight.

        You want people to take responsibility for themselves? Then teach children how to take responsibility by requiring them to DO something other than "hanging out".

        Isn't it strange that on one hand we are focused on protecting everyone from any chance of harm or being overworked....and one of the fastest growing niches focuses on how to feel good about yourself?

        Sorry, Methow - the govt may make you fire your kids. Age 7 and 9 and being paid to "work" with fire and water? That's a boy's dream, isn't it?
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126278].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          The labor dept spokesman appearing on TV today said on family farms "there could be exemptions issued"....maybe.

          But she also said that if you are paying your children to work on a family farm that is an employer/employee status and the rules would apply.

          In farm areas, the only jobs available as summer jobs to kids and teens are on farms. So you'd cancel out those. There is also a proposed requirement for a 90 hr "course" offered by the government, of course, that might be required for 4H and FFA projects. Who knows more about the risks and rewards of a family farm - 4H, FFA and parents....or fatcats in D.C.?

          Under the proposal a kid would have to complete a course to raise a farm animal as a 4H project....and kids like me that just helped out with those animals wouldn't be allowed to do it.

          I wonder if those people who are so upset at any possibility of regulation of the internet care about this kind of intrusion into our lives. What's next - do we turn our kids over to a govt agency when born to keep them safe?
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126347].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author NXmarketeer
        Originally Posted by jimbo13 View Post

        It is worse in the UK for stupid rules. This crops up in the UK on a regular basis.

        US has a population of 400m and has 100 Senators.

        UK has a population of 65m and has 650 MPs (Members of Parliament)

        Why is there an abundance of stupid rules? Too many people with time on their hands.

        Dan
        +1 for this...

        Greece 11m people - 300 elected (what a shame) fat asses that are robbers.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6165182].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
    Yep. I saw this on Fox earlier this morning.

    But hey, when the inbred children of Forrest Gump are running the country...


    Joe Mobley
    Signature

    .

    Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126012].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

      Yep. I saw this on Fox earlier this morning.

      But hey, when the in-bread children of Forrest Gump are running the country...


      Joe Mobley

      Well, I guess the dept of labor is lying cause it certainly couldn't be Fox News...


      ... even if Steve Jobs called Fox News ...


      ...a "destructive force in the society".


      Why would Fox or media from the right misrepresent the truth anyway?


      According to the Dept of Labor: ( at their website )

      Five Facts about the Proposed Child Labor in Agriculture Rule:

      U.S. Department of Labor - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - Child Labor - Five Facts about the Proposed Child Labor in Agriculture Rule


      Highlights...


      - Children will still be able to do all the farm chores at their family farm.

      - Children can help neighbors with their chores.


      I'll just copy and paste from the website.

      I'm sure there aren't any copyright issues.


      Fact # 1:

      The proposed Child Labor in Agriculture rule will not prohibit all people under the age of 18 from working on a farm.

      The proposed rule would not change any of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum age standards for agricultural employment.

      Under the FLSA, the legal age to be employed on a farm without restrictions is 16.

      The FLSA also allows children between the ages of 12 and 15 years, under certain conditions, to be employed outside of school hours to perform nonhazardous jobs on farms.

      Children under the age of 12 may be employed with parental permission on very small farms to perform nonhazardous jobs outside of school hours.

      Young people can be employed to perform many jobs on the farm – and this would be true even if the proposed rule were adopted as written.

      The proposed rule would, however, prohibit the employment of workers under the age of 18 in nonagricultural occupations in the farm-product raw materials wholesale trade industries.

      Prohibited establishments would include country grain elevators, grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, feed yards, stockyard, livestock exchanges, and livestock auctions not on a farm or used solely by a single farmer.

      What these locations have in common is that many workers, including children, have suffered occupational deaths or serious injuries working in these facilities over the last few years.

      Fact # 2:

      The proposed rule would not eliminate the parental exemption for owners/operators of a family farm.

      The parental exemption for the owner or operator of a farm is statutory and cannot be eliminated through the regulatory process.

      A child of any age may perform any job, even hazardous work, at any age at any time on a farm owned by his or her parent.

      A child of any age whose parent operates a farm may also perform any task, even hazardous jobs, on that farm but only outside of school hours.

      So for children working on farms that are registered as LLCs, but operated solely by their parents, the parental exemption would still apply.


      Fact # 3:

      This proposed regulation will not eliminate 4-H and FFA programs.

      The Department of Labor fully supports the important contributions both 4-H and the FFA make toward developing our children.

      The proposed rule would in no way prohibit a child from raising or caring for an animal in a non-employment situation — even if the animal were housed on a working farm — as long as he or she is not hired or “employed” to work with the animal.

      In such a situation, the child is not acting as an “employee” and is not governed by the child labor regulations.

      And there is nothing in the proposed rule that would prevent a child from being employed to work with animals other than in those specific situations identified in the proposal as particularly hazardous.


      Fact # 4:

      Under the proposed rule, children will still be able to help neighbors in need of help.


      In order for the child labor provisions of the FLSA to apply, there must first be an employer/employee relationship.

      The lone act of helping a neighbor round up loose cattle who have broken out of their fencing, for example, generally would not establish an employer/employee relationship.

      Fact # 5:

      Children will still be able to take animals to the county fair or to market.

      A child who raises and cares for his or her animal -- for example, as part of a 4-H project -- is not being employed by anyone, and thus is outside the coverage of the FLSA.

      Even if the child needs to rent space from a farm, the animal is not part of the farm’s business and with regard to the care of the animal no employer/employee relationship exists, so the child labor provisions would not apply.

      Likewise, there would be no problem with taking the animal to the county fair or to market, since the child is doing this on his/her own behalf – not on behalf of an employer.

      The proposed prohibitions would apply only if the child was an employee of the exchange or auction.


      U.S. Department of Labor - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - Child Labor - Five Facts about the Proposed Child Labor in Agriculture Rule


      Somebody's misrepresenting the truth on this matter.


      I wonder who ??


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126301].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Well, I guess the dept of labor is lying cause it certainly couldn't be Fox News...


        ... even if Steve Jobs called them a "destructive force in the society".


        Why would Fox or media from the right misrepresent the truth anyway?


        According to the Dept of Labor: ( at their website )

        Five Facts about the Proposed Child Labor in Agriculture Rule:

        U.S. Department of Labor - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - Child Labor - Five Facts about the Proposed Child Labor in Agriculture Rule


        Highlights...


        - Children will still be able to do all the farm chores at their family farm.

        - Children can help neighbors with their chores.


        I'll just copy and paste from the website.

        I'm sure there aren't any copyright issues.


        Fact # 1:

        The proposed Child Labor in Agriculture rule will not prohibit all people under the age of 18 from working on a farm.

        The proposed rule would not change any of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum age standards for agricultural employment.

        Under the FLSA, the legal age to be employed on a farm without restrictions is 16.

        The FLSA also allows children between the ages of 12 and 15 years, under certain conditions, to be employed outside of school hours to perform nonhazardous jobs on farms.

        Children under the age of 12 may be employed with parental permission on very small farms to perform nonhazardous jobs outside of school hours.

        Young people can be employed to perform many jobs on the farm - and this would be true even if the proposed rule were adopted as written.

        The proposed rule would, however, prohibit the employment of workers under the age of 18 in nonagricultural occupations in the farm-product raw materials wholesale trade industries.

        Prohibited establishments would include country grain elevators, grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, feed yards, stockyard, livestock exchanges, and livestock auctions not on a farm or used solely by a single farmer.

        What these locations have in common is that many workers, including children, have suffered occupational deaths or serious injuries working in these facilities over the last few years.

        Fact # 2:

        The proposed rule would not eliminate the parental exemption for owners/operators of a family farm.

        The parental exemption for the owner or operator of a farm is statutory and cannot be eliminated through the regulatory process.

        A child of any age may perform any job, even hazardous work, at any age at any time on a farm owned by his or her parent.

        A child of any age whose parent operates a farm may also perform any task, even hazardous jobs, on that farm but only outside of school hours.

        So for children working on farms that are registered as LLCs, but operated solely by their parents, the parental exemption would still apply.


        Fact # 3:

        This proposed regulation will not eliminate 4-H and FFA programs.

        The Department of Labor fully supports the important contributions both 4-H and the FFA make toward developing our children.

        The proposed rule would in no way prohibit a child from raising or caring for an animal in a non-employment situation -- even if the animal were housed on a working farm -- as long as he or she is not hired or "employed" to work with the animal.

        In such a situation, the child is not acting as an "employee" and is not governed by the child labor regulations.

        And there is nothing in the proposed rule that would prevent a child from being employed to work with animals other than in those specific situations identified in the proposal as particularly hazardous.


        Fact # 4:

        Under the proposed rule, children will still be able to help neighbors in need of help.


        In order for the child labor provisions of the FLSA to apply, there must first be an employer/employee relationship.

        The lone act of helping a neighbor round up loose cattle who have broken out of their fencing, for example, generally would not establish an employer/employee relationship.

        Fact # 5:

        Children will still be able to take animals to the county fair or to market.

        A child who raises and cares for his or her animal -- for example, as part of a 4-H project -- is not being employed by anyone, and thus is outside the coverage of the FLSA.

        Even if the child needs to rent space from a farm, the animal is not part of the farm's business and with regard to the care of the animal no employer/employee relationship exists, so the child labor provisions would not apply.

        Likewise, there would be no problem with taking the animal to the county fair or to market, since the child is doing this on his/her own behalf - not on behalf of an employer.

        The proposed prohibitions would apply only if the child was an employee of the exchange or auction.


        U.S. Department of Labor - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - Child Labor - Five Facts about the Proposed Child Labor in Agriculture Rule


        Somebody's misrepresenting the truth on this matter.


        I wonder who ??


        TL
        You forgot fact # 6:

        The Law Isn't Needed.
        Just more government intrusion where it has no business.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126653].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
          Once again, overcome by the merely obvious.

          Joe Mobley


          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          You forgot fact # 6:

          The Law Isn't Needed.
          Just more government intrusion where it has no business.
          Signature

          .

          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126689].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Well, I guess the dept of labor is lying cause it certainly couldn't be Fox News...
        ... even if Steve Jobs called them a "destructive force in the society".
        I agree with Jobs in this case. The Dept. of Labor has been a very destructive force in our society.

        Why would Fox or media from the right misrepresent the truth anyway?
        Maybe the real truth isn't the truth the statists make it out to be?

        Fact # 1:
        The proposed Child Labor in Agriculture rule will not prohibit all people under the age of 18 from working on a farm.

        The proposed rule would not change any of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum age standards for agricultural employment.

        Under the FLSA, the legal age to be employed on a farm without restrictions is 16.

        The FLSA also allows children between the ages of 12 and 15 years, under certain conditions, to be employed outside of school hours to perform nonhazardous jobs on farms.
        According to DOL, operating a weedeater is a 'hazardous job'. As is operating a lawnmower.

        Even if a child is home-schooled, they can't work as an 'employee' during 'school hours'. No exceptions allowed.

        My kids' school had programs where the kids could work at the school - groundskeeping, in the cafeteria, clerical, etc. - and their wages would be applied against tuition. The DOL ended that, because the kids couldn't work during 'school hours'. Hundreds of kids across the country were forced into public schools because their parents couldn't afford the tuition on their own.

        Children under the age of 12 may be employed with parental permission on very small farms to perform nonhazardous jobs outside of school hours.
        I can't even go on with all this. The bottom line is that to many people - and unfortunately those people are in power, at the moment - the state is the sole arbiter of the welfare of its citizens, children included. Parents are obligated to raise their children, but only by permission of, and under the watchful eye of, the state.

        Some of the jobs I had as a kid are now off limits to my kids, because of an intrusive government.

        Somebody's misrepresenting the truth on this matter.
        I wonder who ??
        TL
        Yeah, I wonder who?
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126719].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
        So let me see if I've got this right.

        You're so politically thin-skinned and emotionally immature that you feel the need to bust my chops on a public forum because you didn't like to TV channel I was watching. Brilliant!

        You don't know anything, or very little about me. You don't know my political views. I didn't mention any of the details in the news piece or if I agreed or disagreed with them.

        Somebody just mashed your FOX pimple and you throw a temper-tantrum.

        And they let people like you vote.

        Joe Mobley

        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Well, I guess the dept of labor is lying cause it certainly couldn't be Fox News...


        ... even if Steve Jobs called Fox News ...


        ...a "destructive force in the society".


        Why would Fox or media from the right misrepresent the truth anyway?


        TL
        Signature

        .

        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6128781].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
        If I understand correctly, Steve Jobs is dead. I think I heard it on FOX.

        Joe Mobley


        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Well, I guess the dept of labor is lying cause it certainly couldn't be Fox News...


        ... even if Steve Jobs called Fox News ...


        ...a "destructive force in the society".


        Why would Fox or media from the right misrepresent the truth anyway?


        TL
        Signature

        .

        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6128808].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

          If I understand correctly, Steve Jobs is dead. I think I heard it on FOX.

          Joe Mobley

          That's a snappy comeback wow!


          BTW,

          your diatribe aimed at me above is corny as you're simply trying to cover your bases so it won't look like you just like many people in here, fell for another lie that Fox and others set upon the society.
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6128893].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            That's a snappy comeback wow!


            BTW,

            your diatribe aimed at me above is corny as you're simply trying to cover your bases so it won't look like you just like many people in here, fell for another lie that Fox and others set upon the society.
            It made me laugh!
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129020].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          This attempt at control and regulation is along the same lines as those that resulted in the shutdown of several refineries in the past two years. No new refineries are being built but five have shut down rather than continue to operate a loss....directly caused by conflicting reams of new regulations and requirements.

          If you can't order people to live as you think they should - you bury them in paperwork until they give up. Where is the "freedom" in that?

          On the other hand - any smart farm kid knows when it comes to taking orders...you better listen to Dad first. His hand is a lot closer to your butt than the protective arm of D.C.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6128937].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Well, I guess the dept of labor is lying cause it certainly couldn't be Fox News...


        ... even if Steve Jobs called Fox News ...


        ...a "destructive force in the society".


        TL
        It's ironic you would quote Steve Jobs in this thread, considering the fact that he is responsible for more child slave labor than probably all of the US farms combined.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153051].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          It's ironic you would quote Steve Jobs in this thread, considering the fact that he is responsible for more child slave labor than probably all of the US farms combined.

          Point taken.


          All The Best!!


          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153070].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Methow
    I live in farm country and have two boys 7 & 9. Last weekend we spent a day cleaning the irrigation ditch before they turn it on. They took turns, one with a torch, the other with a hose as we burned the grass and debris.

    Of course I was right there and watched them like a hawk . . . but I want them to learn responsibility and care by giving them jobs that can do that require it.

    PS - I pay 'em $5 and hour. Slave labor.
    Signature
    "No electrons were harmed in the creation, transmission, or reading of this forum post. However, many were excited and some may have well enjoyed the experience."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126032].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Not sure that Daily Caller got part of the story right. It says:

      "The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land."

      Then links to the original story where this is written: "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents."

      Seems like an important point they got wrong there, don't you think?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126252].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        "Is The Obama Administration Intervening In Farm Chores?

        The short answer is no. Here's the long one (at Storify).

        Remember this: when a headline or tweet sounds too good or too bad to be true ... it probably isn't! Neither is this meme."



        Is The Obama Administration Intervening In Farm Chores? | The Moderate Voice
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126344].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          "Is The Obama Administration Intervening In Farm Chores?

          The short answer is no. Here's the long one (at Storify).

          Remember this: when a headline or tweet sounds too good or too bad to be true ... it probably isn't! Neither is this meme."



          Is The Obama Administration Intervening In Farm Chores? | The Moderate Voice

          Say Tim,


          Are you saying some folks are getting all worked up over nothing?

          Can you help me understand why anyone would misrepresent the facts in this matter?

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126370].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Not sure that Daily Caller got part of the story right. It says:

        "The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land."

        Then links to the original story where this is written: "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents."

        Seems like an important point they got wrong there, don't you think?
        So Tim, who is the bill aimed for?
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126626].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Well, children who are not working on family farms. Do you believe in child labor laws Kim? That's not a rhetorical question because I know some libertarians are against child labor laws.

          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          So Tim, who is the bill aimed for?
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126909].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Well, children who are not working on family farms. Do you believe in child labor laws Kim? That's not a rhetorical question because I know some libertarians are against child labor laws.
            I don't know any liberterians that are against child labor laws. I also don't see any current lack of child labor laws. If kids are being employed by corporations to do the very things this bill prohibits - it's already illegal. So ask questions about why additional laws are needed then. I don't go by website explanations -- I go by the actual wording of the document itself and any supporting documents cited. It's the only way you get to the truth since everyone seems to be career liars today - gov and press.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126978].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              It's not just a few Libertarians who believe there shouldn't be any child labor laws at all, heck, it was even part of National Platform of the Libertarian Party:

              "We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws."

              Libertarian Party Platform - FAMILIES AND CHILDREN

              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              I don't know any liberterians that are against child labor laws.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127082].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                It's not just a few Libertarians who believe there shouldn't be any child labor laws at all, heck, it was even part of National Platform of the Libertarian Party:

                "We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws."

                Libertarian Party Platform - FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
                Now who is distorting the truth? You left out the first sentence in the paragraph:

                A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly. We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.
                Let's look at a little more:
                Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government, unless they are abusing the children. We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger.
                Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children.
                It appears that you're deliberately trying to paint a distorted picture of libertarian principles, to further your own 'the state knows best' agenda. Is that the case, or am I mistaken?
                Signature

                The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127205].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  I simply quoted the platform of the Libertarian Party which says it's against Child Labor laws. How does not including the content you posted make that any different and distorting the truth?
                  How does "A child is a human being ...." change the fact they are against child labor laws? What does any of the other parts you posted have to do with what we are discussing here which is child labor and laws to regulate it??! :/

                  Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                  Now who is distorting the truth? You left out the first sentence in the paragraph:



                  Let's look at a little more:




                  It appears that you're deliberately trying to paint a distorted picture of libertarian principles, to further your own 'the state knows best' agenda. Is that the case, or am I mistaken?
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127559].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Well, children who are not working on family farms. Do you believe in child labor laws Kim? That's not a rhetorical question because I know some libertarians are against child labor laws.
            Those examples of 'libertarians' are probably more akin to anarchists.

            Child protection laws are needed. No one in their right minds would have children working in coal mines or logging, for instance. The objection is to overreaching regulation by know-it-alls thousands of miles away who have not a care for the real-world consequences of their do-gooderism.

            The state does NOT know best. Unfortunately, a great many people have been befuddled into believing that it does, and allowing it unfettered regulatory power in aspects of people's lives it has no business regulating.
            Signature

            The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

            Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127129].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lori Kelly
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Not sure that Daily Caller got part of the story right. It says:

        "The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land."

        Then links to the original story where this is written: "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents."

        Seems like an important point they got wrong there, don't you think?
        It is an important fact they got wrong.
        I call it selective reporting.
        Signature
        Learn Website Tips, How to Do Keyword Research, & How to Write Killer Content.
        Stop Wasting Time.
        Start Living Your Dream.
        Click Here NOW to Get Your Hands on
        One of the Most Valuable Ebooks Ever!

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6128369].message }}
    • Originally Posted by Methow View Post

      I live in farm country and have two boys 7 & 9. Last weekend we spent a day cleaning the irrigation ditch before they turn it on. They took turns, one with a torch, the other with a hose as we burned the grass and debris.

      Of course I was right there and watched them like a hawk . . . but I want them to learn responsibility and care by giving them jobs that can do that require it.

      PS - I pay 'em $5 and hour. Slave labor.

      I have reported you to child services for your utterly irresponsible behaviour...how can you treat your children so harshly when they could be safely indoors playing World of Warcraft?? They barely have to time to develop their protective layers of blubber!

      I hope they throw you in the nearest prison camp...where more than likely you will view your sentence as light...(given your daily routine )

      Heck $5 /hr is a fortune to a 7yr old...don't let that out - every kid in town will want that job...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126261].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anna7
    My country is full of stupid regulations too... But this is what happens when stupid people rule... *sigh*
    Anyway, I may not be an American, but I agree that chores (farm chores or otherwise) should not be outlawed. There is a difference between making sure kids help around the home and being abusive. Chores help instill discipline and work ethic. And that can be done without being irresponsible.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126325].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126355].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      So we go totally off topic and fall off the left end of the world?
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126371].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Ernie Lonardo View Post

      You still think your government isnt behind 9/11? When are you people going to rally and stop this nonsense?

      These people are not stupid. They are plain evil and will not stop unless more people wake up and get angry.

      You can call me a tin foil hat crack pot for all I care because it needs to be said.

      Wake up! Your government are trying to ruin you, ruin the economy and in the end have you micro chipped ( if you don't believe me look at the news propaganda on youtube its been in the making for years) and force a cashless society where they really have you by the balls.

      I know you never give up but please wait for an appropriate thread or start your own for this type of commentary.


      Thanks Much,


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126421].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ernie Lo
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I know you never give up but please wait for an appropriate thread or start your own for this type of commentary.


        Thanks Much,


        TL
        Ok fair enough sorry.

        I'm just really upset over this and it doesnt just stop at kids not doing chores.

        Lately many family farms have been raided and banned from sharing raw milk and other items with their neighbours and even pigs being killed by big agra. They really don't want people to be healthy and self sufficient but want people to eat their GMO food.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126466].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Some days ago was discussing same subject with a friend. Nowadays kids can't do **** - it's dangerous, it's bad for their health, and so on.

    Give them Playstation, Facebook and feed them like turtles.

    Edit: My discussion started after watching this old picture form Oporto, northern Portugal.



    Kids used to dive in there, playing around,... kids stuff. Now, you can't dive there - or anywhere else... unless you want to get in jail.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126683].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    TL - You don't need to turn this conversation into another media bashing or partisan promoting argument.

    The point about injuries doesn't hold up - farm injuries have gone down significantly...not up. That's mainly due to better safety standards on farm implements.

    7.2 injuries per 1000 farm children - and those include stitches for cuts, bumps on the head, etc. Farm parents do not allow their children to work in unsafe conditions - any more than other parents would.

    The bigger point is the system is not broken - it doesn't need a government fix.

    The spokesperson's comments (a government person appointed to explain this new bill) are in opposition to what is being said in some places.

    From a practical view, this legislation makes no sense. How will it be enforced? Will we hire a few thousand more govt workers to check up on farmers...or will this be only another way for lawyers to make money in lawsuits?

    I think this bill is an insult to Americans. Farmers don't need the government telling them who to hire or how their kids are allowed to work. We have a country drowning in debt in large part due to stupidly restrictive policies like this that accomplish nothing good but cost a lot of money.

    Have you ever worked on a farm? I doubt it or you'd understand it's a totally different concept that has little or nothing in common with other types of labor. As I said before, the spokesperson stated it would only apply to family farms in the details of what work children would be "allowed" to do. That alone is a major change.

    It looks like a duck - because that's what it is.
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
    what it is instead of what you think it should be.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126706].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Kay,
    It's what he does.

    Steve,
    I'm not wondering.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126720].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ernie Lo
    Kay King the legislation doesnt make sense because its not meant for any good just to fuel their evil agenda believe me. Monsanto is evil and want to feed us cancer causing GMO food and in the end they'll get what they want because not enough people are speaking up about it. I guess they are too busy on facebook and watching dancing with the stars or whatever they do.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126722].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by Ernie Lonardo View Post

      Kay King the legislation doesnt make sense because its not meant for any good just to fuel their evil agenda believe me. Monsanto is evil and want to feed us cancer causing GMO food and in the end they'll get what they want because not enough people are speaking up about it. I guess they are too busy on facebook and watching dancing with the stars or whatever they do.

      Actually Erie a lot of people on FaceBook are spreading the word about Monsanto.
      I can name 5 others from this forum alone besides myself that are doing it.
      I shared a post about it and someone from one of my niches commented.I was blown away, he was the last person I would have thought would be aware of it.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126744].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      So you think Monsanto is behind this bill? I think it more likely well meaning but poorly informed bureaucrats are looking for agendas to justify their high salaries.

      This thread has brought up memories though. My cousin and I used to "ride out to bring the cattle in" and my Grandfather was kind enough not to laugh at us about it.

      We wanted an excuse to ride the horses - but we were on a farm, not a ranch - the cows were smart enough to come to the barn at feeding time without our assistance. We whooped and galloped - and the cattle mostly ignored us. But we sure had fun doing it.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126753].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Kay,
    I'm not saying Monsato is behind it,and I didn't get that from Ernie's post,but maybe I misunderstood it.

    I wasn't on a farm full time, only every summer and I was around hay bailing equipment,pitchforks, cows,bulls,chickens,pigs (they really are dirty animals),
    We did have a house where we did own horses full time though.

    And I forgot,almost all of us at the time participated in 4-H.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126821].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Yes I believe in laws protecting children.

    I also believe that it is not an issue that the government needs to be legislating.

    And just to set the record straight, I am an American. Not a Republican,not a Democrat,thought almost every election I was able to vote in I did vote Democrat, and not a Libertarian.
    But an American,that wants this country to be great again,both domestically and Abroad.
    Something that has been destroyed by both dominant parties currently running/ruining this country.

    As I stated before:


    You forgot fact # 6:

    The Law Isn't Needed.
    Just more government intrusion where it has no business.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126958].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Not quite getting that one Kim. Seems like you are for and against the same thing.
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Yes I believe in laws protecting children.

      I also believe that it is not an issue that the government needs to be legislating.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127175].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Plus, this law has been in place for 42 years. It's just getting some updates that were recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, among others.

        People are bringing up Monsanto. Let me ask you this: do you think a kid working on a Monsanto owned farm is OK and shouldn't have protections simply because it is an agriculture job?
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127183].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Plus, this law has been in place for 42 years. It's just getting some updates that were recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, among others.

          People are bringing up Monsanto. Let me ask you this: do you think a kid working on a Monsanto owned farm is OK and shouldn't have protections simply because it is an agriculture job?
          The main issue seems to be resolved - but I have comments on that comment.

          I'll go one further on this issue -- do you believe that ADULTS are deserving of being poisoned just because they are no longer minors. IF a farm is toxic - do you want to eat their food? Do YOU want to work in the toxins? A LOT of adult workers and farmers are also suffering from disease they picked up working on MONSANTO farms. Why should health and safety only be important for children. We ALL deserve protection from Monsanto.

          Small farms and organic farms are under attack from political Monsanto supporters. Any law you see right now being purported that would cause a strain to small farms may be a bill that has been proposed and lobbied by Monsanto because right now there is a major rise against them and they have to cut out ability of the public to grow organic foods or they are going to go belly up in this country == and we are one of the last that even allows their poison on our soil.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6134275].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

            I'll go one further on this issue -- do you believe that ADULTS are deserving of being poisoned just because they are no longer minors. IF a farm is toxic - do you want to eat their food? Do YOU want to work in the toxins? A LOT of adult workers and farmers are also suffering from disease they picked up working on MONSANTO farms. Why should health and safety only be important for children. We ALL deserve protection from Monsanto.
            I'm for the protection of all people in the workplace.

            There has to be a balance somewhere.
            I agree with that completely. In most issues a common ground or a happy medium can be found. However, these days you don't see many who want to find that balance. the word compromise is suddenly a bad thing. It's a shame really.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6134397].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              ...In most issues a common ground or a happy medium can be found. However, these days you don't see many who want to find that balance. the word compromise is suddenly a bad thing. It's a shame really.
              Compromise IS a bad thing when principles are threatened. It is a primary weapon in the statist's arsenal of abrogating freedom incrementally.

              The principle here is that of limited government.

              The U.S is well on its way to total statism today because people with principles have compromised them in the name of civility. Not all at once, but bit by bit. The people who believe that the state should hold supreme power over the citizens know that such a battle can't be won outright - so they do it one small bite at a time.

              We need to abolish the Department of Education, Department of Labor, Department of Energy, Homeland Security, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

              Ok, I'll compromise: I'll settle with closing Education, Labor, and Commerce.
              Signature

              The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

              Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6137243].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Everyone thinks they have principles that are being threatened. You think your side is the only one?

                You don't believe in a limited government or a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You believe in a type of government that is a pipe dream. No regulations, no rules, no taxes, no public schools, no child labor laws, no security...The opposite of statism is anarchist and that seems to be what you are. I ain't gonna compromise this country into your idea of what it should be that's for sure. :/

                Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                Compromise IS a bad thing when principles are threatened. It is a primary weapon in the statist's arsenal of abrogating freedom incrementally.

                The principle here is that of limited government.

                The U.S is well on its way to total statism today because people with principles have compromised them in the name of civility. Not all at once, but bit by bit. The people who believe that the state should hold supreme power over the citizens know that such a battle can't be won outright - so they do it one small bite at a time.

                We need to abolish the Department of Education, Department of Labor, Department of Energy, Homeland Security, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

                Ok, I'll compromise: I'll settle with closing Education, Labor, and Commerce.
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6137298].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  If govt agencies had to produce results to stay in business - the three mentioned by Steve would have been gone a long time ago. That's one problem - we add and add...but we never subtract.

                  I think the word principle has been replace with partisan. We no longer discuss issues - we tell others what THEY believe in. If that's a freedom - it's one we should lose.
                  Signature
                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                  ***
                  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6137641].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  Everyone thinks they have principles that are being threatened. You think your side is the only one?

                  You don't believe in a limited government or a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You believe in a type of government that is a pipe dream. No regulations, no rules, no taxes, no public schools, no child labor laws, no security...The opposite of statism is anarchist and that seems to be what you are. I ain't gonna compromise this country into your idea of what it should be that's for sure. :/
                  The principles of unlimited government - statism - aren't being threatened. They just haven't been fully realized. So yes, from that point of view, I think 'my side' is the only one being threatened. Principles of limited government are under attack, and have been for a hundred years.

                  I believe in the type of government that is laid out in the U.S. Constitution. It is evident that you do not. If you did, this - the 10th Amendment to the Constitution - would mean something to you:
                  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
                  I'm guessing you probably have a problem with the 2nd Amendment too, but I shan't go any further down that road

                  Whether a 13-year old child can or can't work during 'school hours' is not a valid function of a federal government. Nor is how much water a toilet uses when it's flushed. Nor is denying a landowner use of their property because for 2 months out of the year it's soggy, therefore a 'wetland'.

                  You'd probably be sputtering in your coffee if you found out that my kids didn't see the inside of a school building as students until they hit the 9th grade, wouldn't you? And that they both had jobs they worked at during 'school hours'?
                  Signature

                  The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                  Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6138137].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                    I believe in the type of government that is laid out in the U.S. Constitution. It is evident that you do not. If you did, this - the 10th Amendment to the Constitution - would mean something to you:

                    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
                    I think you believe in your interpretation of the the 10th amendment which seems to be a common one these days. I hear all these folks talk about there is no authority in the constitution given to the federal government for this or that and point to the 10th amendment as proof. What is important in the 10th amendment though is what words are not in it as compared to the Articles of Confederation, such as the word "expressly".

                    James Madison, known as the "father of the constitution" objected to an amendment to include the word "expressly" in what became the 10th amendment. An eyewitness account was described in the book The Complete Bill Of Rights:

                    "Madison objected to this amendment, because it was impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express powers, there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution descended to recount every minutiae. He [Madison] remembered the word 'expressly' had been moved in the convention of Virginia, by the opponents to the ratification, and after full and fair discussion was given up by them, and the system allowed to retain its present form.
                    Bold emphasis added by me.

                    A few years later, founding father and Chief Justice John Marshall agreed with how the 10th amendment should be interpreted and commented on the important omission of the word "expressly":

                    The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments.
                    So, I will take James Madison's and John Marshall's interpretation of the 10th amendment over yours.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6147603].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                      I think you believe in your interpretation of the the 10th amendment which seems to be a common one these days. I hear all these folks talk about there is no authority in the constitution given to the federal government for this or that and point to the 10th amendment as proof. What is important in the 10th amendment though is what words are not in it as compared to the Articles of Confederation, such as the word "expressly".

                      James Madison, known as the "father of the constitution" objected to an amendment to include the word "expressly" in what became the 10th amendment. An eyewitness account was described in the book The Complete Bill Of Rights:

                      Bold emphasis added by me.

                      A few years later, founding father and Chief Justice John Marshall agreed with how the 10th amendment should be interpreted and commented on the important omission of the word "expressly":

                      So, I will take James Madison's and John Marshall's interpretation of the 10th amendment over yours.
                      Well, of course you will!

                      I do agree that the document can't possibly enumerate everything down to the last detail. But if you're trying to paint Madison's remarks as indicative of his view of enumerated powers of the federal government, let's take a look at something else he said, shall we?

                      In 1794, Madison wrote this reaction to Congress' appropriation of $15,000 to help a group of French refugees:
                      I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
                      In another letter, he wrote:
                      With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
                      If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
                      In Federalist No. 45, Madison writes,
                      The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
                      The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government.
                      Madison further wrote
                      Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, *******ized form of illegitimate government.
                      Alexander Hamilton was against the adoption of the 10th amendment (actually, he was against the whole Bill of Rights). In his view, it wasn't needed. From the Federalist Papers No. 84:
                      [A Bill of Rights] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
                      So - I think it is rather plain to see that James Madison, in arguing for his vision of how the Constitution should be drafted, tried to emphasize that the new federal government would NOT have unlimited power, that it would be constrained.

                      He also left us with one other pearl of wisdom, particularly meaningful in these times:
                      I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
                      Signature

                      The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                      Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6150008].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                        Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                        So - I think it is rather plain to see that James Madison, in arguing for his vision of how the Constitution should be drafted, tried to emphasize that the new federal government would NOT have unlimited power, that it would be constrained.
                        Sure. I agree with that. The federal government is restrained in several ways. I'm just saying that the 10th amendment doesn't restrain it as much as some people would like to think. There are enumerated powers and also implied powers.

                        "It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter" ~ Alexander Hamilton

                        Seems this argument has been going on for about 200 years. People used the 10th to argue against the First National Bank of the United States, against the abolishment of slavery, against ending segregation, against a minimum wage, against a national health care plan, etc...
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6152606].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                          Sure. I agree with that. The federal government is restrained in several ways. I'm just saying that the 10th amendment doesn't restrain it as much as some people would like to think. There are enumerated powers and also implied powers.

                          "It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter" ~ Alexander Hamilton



                          Seems this argument has been going on for about 200 years.

                          People used the 10th to argue against the First National Bank of the United States, against the abolishment of slavery, against ending segregation, against a minimum wage, against a national health care plan, etc...

                          I hear you Tim.



                          This particular argument is probably the original big argument other than the assumption debate.

                          Should the fed gov be weak or strong and just what can it do??

                          I guess the ultimate restrainer on the power of the fed gov is the SCOTUS.

                          Lots of people don't want the federal gov to get in their business especially when their business just happens to infringe on the constitutional rights of groups of people in their states.


                          Lots of people don't understand that...

                          American are citizens of this country before they are citizens of a particular state.

                          If a state is clearly abusing a particular group of citizens of the U.S.A., the federal government has the right to intervene and try to stop the abuse.


                          TL
                          Signature

                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6152729].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                        Well, of course you will!

                        I do agree that the document can't possibly enumerate everything down to the last detail. But if you're trying to paint Madison's remarks as indicative of his view of enumerated powers of the federal government, let's take a look at something else he said, shall we?

                        In 1794, Madison wrote this reaction to Congress' appropriation of $15,000 to help a group of French refugees:


                        In another letter, he wrote:




                        In Federalist No. 45, Madison writes,


                        Madison further wrote


                        Alexander Hamilton was against the adoption of the 10th amendment (actually, he was against the whole Bill of Rights). In his view, it wasn't needed. From the Federalist Papers No. 84:


                        So - I think it is rather plain to see that James Madison, in arguing for his vision of how the Constitution should be drafted, tried to emphasize that the new federal government would NOT have unlimited power, that it would be constrained.

                        He also left us with one other pearl of wisdom, particularly meaningful in these times:

                        Interesting stuff.


                        I have a question for you sir.

                        Who should set the direction and priorities for this nation?

                        The national government, the free market or a mixture of both?


                        TL
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154061].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author KimW
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          Interesting stuff.


                          I have a question for you sir.

                          Who should set the direction and priorities for this nation?

                          The national government, the free market or a mixture of both?


                          TL
                          No, instead they will be going bankrupt due to illegal government taxation, I dreamed our country had a tea party against that once.........
                          Signature

                          Read A Post.
                          Subscribe to a Newsletter
                          KimWinfrey.Com

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154097].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author garyv
                            Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                            No, instead they will be going bankrupt due to illegal government taxation, I dreamed our country had a tea party against that once.........
                            Took the words right out of my mouth (ok keyboard).

                            There will be a lot of small businesses (and probably some big ones) that will not be able to afford mandated insurance, and will thus be penalized out of business. - More people will go bankrupt after the mandate than before.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154141].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                              Took the words right out of my mouth (ok keyboard).

                              There will be a lot of small businesses (and probably some big ones) that will not be able to afford mandated insurance, and will thus be penalized out of business. - More people will go bankrupt after the mandate than before.

                              Not true...


                              http://files.cfra.org/pdf/Small-Busi...ealth-Care.pdf
                              Signature

                              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154237].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                From reading your link it looks very true.

                                As usual the government definition of small business is way off base for one thing.
                                Signature

                                Read A Post.
                                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                KimWinfrey.Com

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154278].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


                                "The Center's positions are generally characterized as liberal/progressive."

                                Lyons, Nebraska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                Can anyone find contradicting information from a right-leaning think tank?
                                My guess would be yes.
                                Signature

                                Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154386].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                Yes true... It's called the individual mandate. Those not covered by a bigger business (ie - everyone in a small business) are still mandated to provide their own coverage, or pay a penalty. Right now most small businesses are individuals. And a large percentage of small businesses right now are surviving on an extremely small profit margin. This mandate WILL cause many businesses to fold.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154457].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                  Yes true... It's called the individual mandate. Those not covered by a bigger business (ie - everyone in a small business) are still mandated to provide their own coverage, or pay a penalty. Right now most small businesses are individuals. And a large percentage of small businesses right now are surviving on an extremely small profit margin. This mandate WILL cause many businesses to fold.



                                  Time will tell won't it?

                                  I bet you'll be right about the effects of this bill...


                                  ... just like you were right about the auto industry bailout which you were against.


                                  Having said the above I'm not going to bother answering another silly bogus charge regarding the ACA.


                                  - Sal said each property sale would be taxed at 3% to help pay for the bill = wrong.

                                  - Gary said the law would cost almost twice as much as projected = wrong.

                                  and...

                                  - The very initial reason for this thread is wrong.


                                  But...


                                  You folks have fun.


                                  Tim, they're all yours.


                                  All The Best!!

                                  TL
                                  Signature

                                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154692].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                    Time will tell won't it?

                                    I bet you'll be right about the effects of this bill...


                                    ... just like you were right about the auto industry bailout which you were against.


                                    Having said the above I'm not going to bother answering another silly bogus charge regarding the ACA.


                                    - Sal said each property sale would be taxed at 3% to help pay for the bill = wrong.

                                    - Gary said the law would cost almost twice as much as projected = wrong.

                                    and...

                                    - The very initial reason for this thread is wrong.


                                    But...


                                    You folks have fun.


                                    Tim, they're all yours.


                                    All The Best!!

                                    TL
                                    They are only wrong in your mind.
                                    Signature

                                    Read A Post.
                                    Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                    KimWinfrey.Com

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154785].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                    Time will tell won't it?

                                    I bet you'll be right about the effects of this bill...


                                    ... just like you were right about the auto industry bailout which you were against.


                                    All The Best!!

                                    TL
                                    Actually it was a Union bailout, not an auto industry bailout. The non-unionized shops were still forced out of business.

                                    And I never said I was against it - That's just another of your many prejudices showing. You like to lump people into your prejudicial categories without actually listening to the conversation.

                                    Besides - it was George Bush that initiated the Auto Industry bailout.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154833].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                    Time will tell won't it?

                                    I bet you'll be right about the effects of this bill...


                                    ... just like you were right about the auto industry bailout which you were against.


                                    Having said the above I'm not going to bother answering another silly bogus charge regarding the ACA.


                                    - Sal said each property sale would be taxed at 3% to help pay for the bill = wrong.

                                    - Gary said the law would cost almost twice as much as projected = wrong.

                                    and...

                                    - The very initial reason for this thread is wrong.


                                    But...


                                    You folks have fun.


                                    Tim, they're all yours.


                                    All The Best!!

                                    TL

                                    TL,

                                    You're getting so worked up... this is just a forum. Relax my friend.

                                    Now, instead of just spouting "Your wrong..." whenever someone has the nerve to dispute your "facts", why not explain to them why you say they're wrong?

                                    Let's use the real estate tax issue... in my searches, I could not find anything that stated that real estate would be taxed to pay for this. BUT, there is plenty out there about the new 3.8% UNEARNED Income tax on high earning individuals and couples. Income from interest, dividends and capital gains.

                                    I believe the reason for the confusion is because many of the write ups used to explain this, use capital gains from HOME SALES in their examples, so it is easy to confuse the real estate tax thing.

                                    Anyway, no need to get so worked up. Like you said - time will tell. And you may very well be proven wrong. You never know
                                    Signature

                                    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155969].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                      Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                                      TL,

                                      You're getting so worked up... this is just a forum. Relax my friend.

                                      Now, instead of just spouting "Your wrong..." whenever someone has the nerve to dispute your "facts", why not explain to them why you say they're wrong?

                                      Let's use the real estate tax issue... in my searches, I could not find anything that stated that real estate would be taxed to pay for this. BUT, there is plenty out there about the new 3.8% UNEARNED Income tax on high earning individuals and couples. Income from interest, dividends and capital gains.

                                      I believe the reason for the confusion is because many of the write ups used to explain this, use capital gains from HOME SALES in their examples, so it is easy to confuse the real estate tax thing.

                                      Anyway, no need to get so worked up. Like you said - time will tell. And you may very well be proven wrong. You never know

                                      Mike,


                                      No one is getting worked up over anything.

                                      If I believe someone is wrong about this or that why can't I say it?

                                      Even Forbes disagrees with her.

                                      She was suggesting that there would be a 3% surcharge on "all" property sales to help pay for the new health care law.

                                      The suggestion is wrong and that's a fact.

                                      Basic facts may not mean much to a lot of folks in this forum but they do mean something to me.

                                      Forgive me, but I can't help it and I'm ready to be corrected if I'm wrong about something.


                                      TL
                                      Signature

                                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156124].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                        Mike,


                                        No one is getting worked up over anything.

                                        LOL - ok, if you say so...

                                        If I believe someone is wrong about this or that why can't I say it?

                                        No one said you couldn't - I know I didn't.

                                        Even Forbes disagrees with her.

                                        Perhaps - but instead of providing her a link to say so you simply shouted "Wrong!" Not a big help...

                                        She was suggesting that there would be a 3% surcharge on "all" property sales to help pay for the new health care law.

                                        Again - it helps YOU when you show WHY she's wrong. Otherwise, you simply APPEAR to be throwing a minor tantrum.

                                        The suggestion is wrong and that's a fact.

                                        WHY is she wrong? Where is the "fact" you keep claiming?

                                        Basic facts may not mean much to a lot of folks in this forum but they do mean something to me.

                                        WHAT facts? (are you seeing my question here...?)

                                        Forgive me, but I can't help it and I'm ready to be corrected if I'm wrong about something.


                                        TL
                                        You are very big on accusing people of not having their facts straight. It simply helps your credibility when you provide your facts that dispute someone else's facts, or at the VERY least, explain to someone WHY you think they're wrong.

                                        Mike

                                        P.S. I thought you were done with this thread? You told Tim they're all his
                                        Signature

                                        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156147].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                          Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                                          You are very big on accusing people of not having their facts straight.

                                          It simply helps your credibility when you provide your facts that dispute someone else's facts, or at the VERY least, explain to someone WHY you think they're wrong.

                                          Mike

                                          P.S. I thought you were done with this thread? You told Tim they're all his

                                          I gave Sal everything except the link to the Forbes article which I forgot.


                                          I also quoted from the article...


                                          - 3% surtax tax on all home sales?


                                          I think not.

                                          According to Forbes...

                                          "Currently, when a person sells a home they have lived in longer than 2 years, they can exclude the first $250,000 of gains.

                                          A couple can exclude the first $500,000 of gains.

                                          For example, if a couple has a $1,000,000 home with $600,000 of gains, they would have to pay the 3.8% tax on only $100,000 of the gain.

                                          Given that very few people are sitting on large gains right now and the majority of home sales (not just gains) are for less than $250,000,...


                                          ... this tax will hit truly only a small number of people."


                                          Even Forbes does not agree with her dire assessment.


                                          Here's a link to the story.

                                          Taxes and the ACA: Home Sales Killer? - Forbes


                                          Of course since this is the internet and anyone can choose to disagree with the source.


                                          If you read carefully you'll see that I said...

                                          ...I am done with this thread - on all health care law stuff.


                                          All The Best!!


                                          TL
                                          Signature

                                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156182].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                            I gave Sal everything except the link to the Forbes article which I forgot.


                                            I also quoted from the article...


                                            - 3% surtax tax on all home sales?


                                            I think not.

                                            According to Forbes...

                                            "Currently, when a person sells a home they have lived in longer than 2 years, they can exclude the first $250,000 of gains.

                                            A couple can exclude the first $500,000 of gains.

                                            For example, if a couple has a $1,000,000 home with $600,000 of gains, they would have to pay the 3.8% tax on only $100,000 of the gain.

                                            Given that very few people are sitting on large gains right now and the majority of home sales (not just gains) are for less than $250,000,...


                                            ... this tax will hit truly only a small number of people."


                                            Even Forbes does not agree with her dire assessment.


                                            Here's a link to the story.

                                            Taxes and the ACA: Home Sales Killer? - Forbes


                                            Of course since this is the internet and anyone can choose to disagree with the source.


                                            If you read carefully you'll see that I said...

                                            ...I am done with this thread - on all health care law stuff.


                                            All The Best!!


                                            TL

                                            Thanks for the clarification - and the link (now I have something to read...)

                                            And I was referring to what you wrote above:

                                            "But...


                                            You folks have fun.



                                            Tim, they're all yours.



                                            All The Best!!


                                            TL"


                                            That indicated to me that you were finished responding...

                                            Anywho... I was only trying to help.

                                            Mike
                                            Signature

                                            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156211].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


                                    - Sal said each property sale would be taxed at 3% to help pay for the bill = wrong.

                                    TL

                                    You are shooting the messenger. I suggest you READ the damned bill - it has the property tax stuck right in the middle of it -- how the hell did you think they were going to fund this stuff - write some more money? All you have to do is READ what you are talking about.

                                    I'm gonna laugh my ass off when you sell your house and get taxed through the nose for it because of the "health care" bill. LMAO.

                                    Instead of drinking kool-aid - I watch C-span and I read bills. It would be advisable for you to do the same so you don't out yourself for not even looking at what you are talking about first hand. Don't feel bad though - congress didn't read it either. They were pretty surprised about the tax themselves.
                                    Signature

                                    Sal
                                    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                    Beyond the Path

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156751].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                      You are shooting the messenger. I suggest you READ the damned bill - it has the property tax stuck right in the middle of it -- how the hell did you think they were going to fund this stuff - write some more money? All you have to do is READ what you are talking about.

                                      I'm gonna laugh my ass off when you sell your house and get taxed through the nose for it because of the "health care" bill. LMAO.

                                      Instead of drinking kool-aid - I watch C-span and I read bills. It would be advisable for you to do the same so you don't out yourself for not even looking at what you are talking about first hand. Don't feel bad though - congress didn't read it either. They were pretty surprised about the tax themselves.

                                      My objection was to you giving the impression that all...


                                      ... property sales would result in a 3% surtax in order to help pay for the ACA.


                                      Forbes said a very few sales would result in the 3% tax and the 3% would be on high priced homes with very high profit margins...


                                      ...but you gave the gullible the impression that ...



                                      ... "every" ...


                                      ...property sale would result in the 3% surcharge.


                                      Which is absolutely not true.


                                      It would be advisable for you to stop misrepresenting the facts...


                                      ... because every time you do,


                                      ...if I happen see you in action, ...


                                      ...be advised...


                                      ...I'm going to correct you.


                                      All The Best!!

                                      TL
                                      Signature

                                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158107].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                        My objection was to you giving the impression that all...


                                        ... property sales would result in a 3% surtax in order to help pay for the ACA.


                                        Forbes said a very few sales would result in the 3% tax and the 3% would be on high priced homes with very high profit margins...


                                        ...but you gave the gullible the impression that ...



                                        ... "every" ...


                                        ...property sale would result in the 3% surcharge.


                                        Which is absolutely not true.


                                        It would be advisable for you to stop misrepresenting the facts...


                                        ... because every time you do,


                                        ...if I happen see you in action, ...


                                        ...be advised...


                                        ...I'm going to correct you.


                                        All The Best!!

                                        TL


                                        TL,
                                        you not only continually insult the fellow posters,but most of your post are proven over and over to be completely made up.

                                        Why don't you,and I have asked this of you before, actually make factual posts that you can back up with proof like the majority of us do?
                                        You might actually get some credibility that way. :rolleyes:
                                        Signature

                                        Read A Post.
                                        Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                        KimWinfrey.Com

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158244].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                                          TL,
                                          you not only continually insult the fellow posters,but most of your post are proven over and over to be completely made up.

                                          Why don't you, and I have asked this of you before, actually make factual posts that you can back up with proof like the majority of us do?

                                          You might actually get some credibility that way. :rolleyes:

                                          Maybe you think you are, but you are not the warden of this forum.


                                          I have repeatedly and politely asked you to not respond to any of my posts and said I will do the same to you - but you continue to persist.


                                          Do people in this forum need you to defend their positions, opinions and comments?


                                          If not then...


                                          Why don't you let people defend their own positions, opinions and comments?


                                          Being Factual:


                                          You especially, can save the BS about providing proof and being factual...


                                          ... since this is the internet and no matter how crazy a position can be...


                                          ...for every link a counter link can be found and if that doesn't work, folks will just deny the motives at the source of the link.


                                          Following me around this forum...


                                          ( with your silly diggs )


                                          ...and simply contradicting everything I say - no matter what I say or agreeing with anyone who disagrees with me for any reason...


                                          .. should be making you look like a real jerk - in the eyes of at least a few reasonable people around here,...


                                          ...but around here, I can't be too sure.



                                          And finally...

                                          ... trying to paint me as some sort of out of control maniac looking to offend people every chance I get, is not remotely close to reality either.


                                          I'll tell you what Mr. Kim...


                                          If I'm such a disruptive force in this forum...

                                          I implore you to contact a mod or the mods and plead your case to have me banned or suspended and we'll see what happens.


                                          TL


                                          Ps. I'm through with this thread and I hope I'm through with you.

                                          Please honor my request and don't comment on my comments and I shall do the same for you.

                                          At least remember that people can speak for themselves.
                                          Signature

                                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160875].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                            As people know, TL and I see eye to eye on many/most issues. However, even if we didn't I would certainly not say he is posting non factual or made up comments. I know one can get overly sensitive and emotional in these forums ( believe me I REALLY know. haha ), but I think TL and Kim are both good people basically. Kim, I think TL's request to ignore him is a reasonable one and TL, you may want to use that ignore tool here on the forum. Can't we all just get along? haha.
                                            Signature
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161074].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                              Maybe you think you are, but you are not the warden of this forum.

                                              You seem to be the only person that seems to have that opinion.



                                              I have repeatedly and politely asked you to not respond to any of my posts and said I will do the same to you - but you continue to persist.

                                              You are not the warden of this forum either. As stated numerous times now, when I see you insult my friends or make up ;lies about me,my friends,or any other situation then you are going to be called out on it.
                                              And as I also have said,others are now seeing your continuous pattern of doing all of the above mentioned things and are also starting to call you out on it


                                              Do people in this forum need you to defend their positions, opinions and comments?

                                              Is it any of your business if I do?
                                              As I said, your insults both placed in front of everybody and the hidden ones are not only not needed but down right nasty>And on top of that they may not see them.

                                              If not then...


                                              Why don't you let people defend their own positions, opinions and comments?

                                              Answered that above.


                                              Being Factual:


                                              You especially, can save the BS about providing proof and being factual...

                                              Why because you know mine are? LOL

                                              ... since this is the internet and no matter how crazy a position can be...


                                              ...for every link a counter link can be found and if that doesn't work, folks will just deny the motives at the source of the link.

                                              Then why do you persist on providing unfactual links?


                                              Following me around this forum...

                                              Nobody follows you, you may many posts that aren't even worth my time.


                                              ( with your silly diggs )

                                              There you go again with what you think is an implied,or is it an outright insult?

                                              ...and simply contradicting everything I say - no matter what I say or agreeing with anyone who disagrees with me for any reason...

                                              I agree with people who post what I believe in and I disagree with those I don't,and many of them have absolutely nothing to do with anybody that used TL in their identity.Don't be so conceited.
                                              I only contradict your lies, which are many,again as many here have pointed out.



                                              .. should be making you look like a real jerk - in the eyes of at least a few reasonable people around here,...

                                              LOL, as I said,many have finally started calling out your BS TL.
                                              If someone here thinks I look like a jerk for telling the truth, I'm still going to sleep at night. And some do, I am sure. But many don't. And those are the reasonable people.
                                              But I only see one person standing up for you.


                                              ...but around here, I can't be too sure.

                                              Around here you can be sure others are finally opening their eyes to you and your tactics.

                                              And finally...

                                              ... trying to paint me as some sort of out of control maniac looking to offend people every chance I get, is not remotely close to reality either.

                                              I don't need to "try to paint you as anything" As a matter of fact I could find 5 or 6 threads where you made such as as out of yourself where I made posts simply to give yourself an out of the corner you painted your self in.
                                              Trust me, I will never do that again for you.



                                              I'll tell you what Mr. Kim...


                                              If I'm such a disruptive force in this forum...

                                              I implore you to contact a mod or the mods and plead your case to have me banned or suspended and we'll see what happens.

                                              I don't need to do either,first I am not as thin skinned as you are.
                                              As another person posted in another thread about you.When the going gets tough you like to take your toys and go home.


                                              TL


                                              Ps. I'm through with this thread and I hope I'm through with you.

                                              See above comment.

                                              Please honor my request and don't comment on my comments and I shall do the same for you.

                                              For the whatever time it is, The answer is the same. I have the same right to post and respond as you do. It is extremely arrogant to even say such things. But again,you were given directions on how to make it so you don't need to see my responses to you.

                                              At least remember that people can speak for themselves.
                                              As I said,sometimes people don't even know you are insulting them.As was pointed out when you insulted Sal for no reason,she wasn't even involved in the conversation at that time. The hit and run insult is just one of the many tactics you use.


                                              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                              As people know, TL and I see eye to eye on many/most issues. However, even if we didn't I would certainly not say he is posting non factual or made up comments. I know one can get overly sensitive and emotional in these forums ( believe me I REALLY know. haha ), but I think TL and Kim are both good people basically. Kim, I think TL's request to ignore him is a reasonable one and TL, you may want to use that ignore tool here on the forum. Can't we all just get along? haha.
                                              Tim,
                                              I don't know if you remember this or not,but last election time I was standing back to back with you against a bunch of people (most that seemed to have disappeared after the election,how ironic) and I still think we probably still do on many issues. Not because I was especially for obama, but because I was and still in the belief that the office of the president deserves respect even if the person in it doesn't.

                                              Maybe you wouldn't say TL was posting non factual or made up comments,but as the saying goes,the proof is in the pudding. Almost every single Ron Paul statement he has post as "the truth" has in fact been a lie,and not disproven by me,but several others in the forum.

                                              I do not tend to get "overly emotional" as a matter of fact I am extremely thick skinned when it comes to discussions like this,especially because I know how things can be misinterpeted when reading just online typing.
                                              But when the poster is ,as stated before, insulting my friends intentionally and for no reason,yes, I think it should be pointed out that he isn't as clever as he seems to think he is.

                                              I do not think TL's request is a reasonable one, in fact I think it is a childish one, and in fact the first few times he made it it was posted like a command,as if he owned the place.
                                              But, since he made the command, I very politely told him how to use the ignore feature.
                                              It;s obvious that he chose not to.

                                              I like you Tim, I think you are articulate ,intelligent and also a decent person.
                                              Over the years I have also tried to give TL the benefit of the doubt,but he has shown me and others what type he really is.
                                              As far as your last sentence, I have tried to get along, and just as it takes two to have a fight,it also takes two to get along, I made that attempt,numerous times.

                                              SIGNED:
                                              Kim"I taught my kids manners and cleaned up after myself at fast first restaurants" W.

                                              By the way, I don't think I have ever asked for "Thanks" in a thread before, but if anyone agrees with me on this,they would be appreciated.
                                              Signature

                                              Read A Post.
                                              Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                              KimWinfrey.Com

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161394].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                  Yes true... It's called the individual mandate. Those not covered by a bigger business (ie - everyone in a small business) are still mandated to provide their own coverage, or pay a penalty. Right now most small businesses are individuals. And a large percentage of small businesses right now are surviving on an extremely small profit margin. This mandate WILL cause many businesses to fold.
                                  BTW folks, the mandate is FAR from secret! HELL, that is the MAIN point the recent supreme court review was for. WHO could not know that!?!?!?

                                  Steve
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155767].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          Interesting stuff.
                          I have a question for you sir.
                          Who should set the direction and priorities for this nation?
                          The national government, the free market or a mixture of both?
                          TL
                          The 'free market' has nothing to do with directions and priorities.

                          Which hornet's nest are you trying to poke with a nonsensical question like that?
                          Signature

                          The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                          Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155954].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author KimW
                            Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                            The 'free market' has nothing to do with directions and priorities.

                            Which hornet's nest are you trying to poke with a nonsensical question like that?
                            I can answer that for you: everyone's.
                            Signature

                            Read A Post.
                            Subscribe to a Newsletter
                            KimWinfrey.Com

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155972].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                            Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                            The 'free market' has nothing to do with directions and priorities.

                            Which hornet's nest are you trying to poke with a nonsensical question like that?

                            Since many folks believe the free market is the be all to end all,
                            I think it's a very fair question for you - Mr. Constitution.


                            After seeing your canned responses to something else I posted, I'm now not surprised at your attempt to avoid answering the simple question.


                            So, I'll repeat the question and rephrase it a bit, and you can answer it if you dare.


                            Question:

                            Who should set the direction and priorities for this nation?


                            The national gov, the free market or the national gov guiding the free market as that could be looked at as a mixture of the two?


                            TL
                            Signature

                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156090].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                              Since many folks believe the free market is the be all to end all,
                              I think it's a very fair question for you - Mr. Constitution.


                              After seeing your canned responses to something else I posted, I'm now not surprised at your attempt to avoid answering the simple question.

                              So, I'll repeat the question and rephrase it a bit, and you can answer it if you dare.

                              Question:
                              Who should set the direction and priorities for this nation?

                              The national gov, the free market or the national gov guiding the free market as that could be looked at as a mixture of the two?

                              TL
                              None of my responses are 'canned'.

                              If I dare? LOL

                              The national government doesn't have the intellectual capacity, talent, or knowledge to 'guide the free market'. But that doesn't stop them from trying. And usually failing, miserably.

                              The priorities of the U.S. federal government are laid out in the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. The direction the nation takes as a whole should be determined by its elected representatives, whose actions are, or are supposed to be, constrained by our Constitution.

                              The actual rudder-minders have been the judiciary. They were supposed to be insulated from politics and be the leg of government that kept the other two legs in their place.

                              It hasn't worked out that way.

                              Is that a canned enough answer for you?
                              Signature

                              The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                              Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156405].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                                None of my responses are 'canned'.

                                If I dare? LOL

                                The national government doesn't have the intellectual capacity, talent, or knowledge to 'guide the free market'. But that doesn't stop them from trying. And usually failing, miserably.

                                The priorities of the U.S. federal government are laid out in the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. The direction the nation takes as a whole should be determined by its elected representatives, whose actions are, or are supposed to be, constrained by our Constitution.

                                The actual rudder-minders have been the judiciary. They were supposed to be insulated from politics and be the leg of government that kept the other two legs in their place.

                                It hasn't worked out that way.

                                Is that a canned enough answer for you?

                                Thanks for partly answering my question.


                                Since you feel that...

                                "The national government doesn't have the intellectual capacity, talent, or knowledge to 'guide the free market'.

                                But that doesn't stop them from trying. And usually failing, miserably."


                                Should the national government stay out of economic affairs and let the free market lead the nation into the future?


                                TL
                                Signature

                                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156443].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                  Thanks for partly answering my question.
                                  Since you feel that...
                                  "The national government doesn't have the intellectual capacity, talent, or knowledge to 'guide the free market'.
                                  But that doesn't stop them from trying. And usually failing, miserably."
                                  Should the national government stay out of economic affairs and let the free market lead the nation into the future?
                                  TL
                                  Should the feds stay out of economic affairs? For the most part, yes. History has shown that attempts by government to alter the natural balance of a free market have mostly ended in disaster, because no one - not Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or even 535 regular people - can predict with any degree of accuracy the consequence of a policy intervention.

                                  Now you're going to try to say that my thinking the feds should stay clear of economic affairs means that the people who drive the markets should be allowed to run amok. Not so. The human elements of the marketplace need rules for the same reason the human elements of government need them - there are bad apples, unscrupulous scoundrels, and I'm first to acknowledge there needs to be constraints on behavior.

                                  But it doesn't follow that if the government steers clear of trying to use the markets to effect policy the markets will 'lead the nation into the future' rather than the policy makers in government. Your logic and therefore your question is faulty.
                                  Signature

                                  The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                                  Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156714].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  Everyone thinks they have principles that are being threatened. You think your side is the only one?

                  You don't believe in a limited government or a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You believe in a type of government that is a pipe dream. No regulations, no rules, no taxes, no public schools, no child labor laws, no security...The opposite of statism is anarchist and that seems to be what you are. I ain't gonna compromise this country into your idea of what it should be that's for sure. :/
                  Your refusal to "compromise" illustrates that you were blowing hot air before, and WRONG! As for your claim of it being a "pipe dream"? Well, it was that way for almost 200 years! So you are clearly wrong THERE also!

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6138451].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    I think you misunderstood me. I would only not compromise with someone who is not willing to compromise themselves and is only demanding what they want as if their opinion is the only one that matters.
                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                    Your refusal to "compromise" illustrates that you were blowing hot air before,
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6139323].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                      someone who is not willing to compromise themselves and is only demanding what they want as if their opinion is the only one that matters.
                      You're right - it's a big part of many of our problems. Compromise is the result of realistic negotiations - not stubborn rhetoric.

                      When you compromise - no one person is totally happy with the result. No one person is totally left out of the result. What you have is a solution all can tolerate.

                      You can't be a right-fighter and reach a compromise. You can't pick only facts/figures that support your "side" and reach a compromise - you have to consider all the facts/figures and choose the middle ground.
                      Signature
                      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                      ***
                      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6139879].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Not quite getting that one Kim. Seems like you are for and against the same thing.
        To clarify, the law we are discussing is not a child labor protection law.
        Its bureaucratic BS.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127202].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Actually - I think the UN is behind the bill. It's been revealed through testimony that our Gov top admin are taking orders and permissions from the UN and NATO instead of from congress. I warned about this years ago when or gov (current admin) was getting ready to sign the millineum doctrine. It gives the UN powers over OUR rights. We need to let congress know that we do not support 3rd parties determining our rights and still consider that to be treason. That is why parents are now seeing rules and regulations on their parenting that don't make sense in reference to our OWN constitution and bill of rights. US.inc has taken over sovereign USA.

    The problem with MONSANTO is from US.inc as well. Crony capitalism. You do not have sovereignty when being run by corporate instead of constitutional law.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126959].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    There is also agreat argument against this part:
    "Well, children who are not working on family farms."

    What are you going to do with groups of people like the Amish who's lifestyle is based on communal sharing of work?
    I'm sure there are other examples but those are the first that come to mind.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6126994].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    CDC - Total Worker Health - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Program :

    NIOSH believes that the safest and healthiest worker only evolves in an atmosphere where management is fully engaged in the wellbeing of its staff, where the environment is hazard-free and supportive, and where workplace policies and interventions encourage healthier choices--simply put, where the total health of the worker, in the broadest possible sense, is optimized.
    In other words, the state has an overriding interest in your health and wellbeing, and if you choose to abuse either, we will intervene.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127242].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Sal,
    Virginia is a "Right To Work" state.
    What a joke, right to work states are really right to fire for no cause states.

    Sort of like how the "Patriot Act" is really the anti Patriot Act.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127414].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Sal,
      Virginia is a "Right To Work" state.
      What a joke, right to work states are really right to fire for no cause states.

      Sort of like how the "Patriot Act" is really the anti Patriot Act.
      Yep....so are we.
      Signature
      Professional Googler
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127435].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    The issue is,to me, whether this is needed legislation,and the obvious answer to me is no,it is not. Its BS.
    Whether its updating laws from 1942 or not, it isn't needed and another waste of our money.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6127750].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I'm pretty much in agreement Ken,but I think we need a law that says all laws,even the old ones, need to be in understandable language and explained in 10 pages or less.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6128281].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    I haven't seen any exploitation of children by employers in my lifetime. I don't think we need any new laws to protect them.

    If fact, we do not need any new laws at all. We have plenty already, thank you very much.

    The only new law we need is a law against making more laws.
    Surprisingly...I have.

    I personally knew of one young illegal alien working in a sausage plant owned by the Sara Lee Corp. He was a 15 year old boy working 12hr days 5 days a week. I don't know how many more illegals were underage, but I do assume there were more.

    Out of about 550 to 600 employees at least 10% were illegals placed in those positions by using temp services (Kelly) to fill jobs.

    The percentage of illegals jumped to better than 50% on the night shift.

    Thats just one corp. and one temp service in my little corner of one state.

    I assume this happens nationwide....

    And that my friend, is why I believe NOTHING has been getting done to resolve our illegal issues by the federal govt.
    Signature
    Professional Googler
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6128395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Durham
    I once heard a great Warrior (okay : Michael Hiles) tell me that he does marketing for a living , but he also has a farm that's sole purpose is to give the harvest to poor people each year, for the ultimate purpose of teaching his sons the pride of hard work what is meaningful in life.

    Thats amazing. I aspire to be that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6128607].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Michael is an awesome guy.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6128655].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Dave can speak for himself,but by his post I don't think he is advocating more laws either.
    The actual content of his post seemed to be about the illegal alien situation more than anything else,but it did use an example of child labor laws being broken as an example.
    Those are the ones least likely to report it.

    It also happened here in Southern Virginia a few years back if I remember correctly,it was a chicken producer and I am not naming names because I am not 100% sure which one it was. It seems to be certainly more prevalent in certain areas more than others.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6128735].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    And Dave, what are you thanking him for??


    You also swallowed the BS of the initial post, hook, line and sinker.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129023].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      And Dave, what are you thanking him for??


      You also swallowed the BS of the initial post, hook, line and sinker.
      There was no BS in the initial post.
      From the article:
      "In February the Labor Department seemingly backed away from what many had called an unrealistic reach into farmers’ families, reopening the public comment period on a section of the regulations designed to give parents an exemption for their own children."


      The only hook line and sinker fallers are the ones that think new laws are needed regarding this.

      And of course, "Thanks" are for the people to give out where they choose.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129067].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        This is what doesn't make sense to me. This makes it seem like in February of this year the labor department backed away and was willing to make exemptions for families, but like I said, at the beginning of the article it links to the labor department's article from August 31st that clearly says "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents." I believe the author of the article is biased.


        Originally Posted by KimW View Post

        "In February the Labor Department seemingly backed away from what many had called an unrealistic reach into farmers' families, reopening the public comment period on a section of the regulations designed to give parents an exemption for their own children."
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129282].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KimW
          It looks like politics as usual to me ,Tim.


          I really would like to know the answer to what I asked earlier. And this is for anyone,not just Tim,what about the groups like the Amish that do all their work communally? How would this law affect them?


          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          This is what doesn't make sense to me. This makes it seem like in February of this year the labor department backed away and was willing to make exemptions for families, but like I said, at the beginning of the article it links to the labor department's article from August 31st that clearly says "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents." I believe the author of the article is biased.
          Signature

          Read A Post.
          Subscribe to a Newsletter
          KimWinfrey.Com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129329].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          This is what doesn't make sense to me. This makes it seem like in February of this year the labor department backed away and was willing to make exemptions for families, but like I said, at the beginning of the article it links to the labor department's article from August 31st that clearly says "The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents." I believe the author of the article is biased.
          And the federal income tax would never be over 10%. Money will ALWAYS be backed by gold! The first amendment is sacrosanct. I could say things that happened like a week ago that were lies. One investment company once showed like every president for the last 30 years telling the SAME lie! NONE were telling the truth, and nearly all did the opposite!

          How do you know if a politician is lying? they lie nearly 100% of the time AND, when they don't, it is generally wrong, or a half truth.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129368].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hardraysnight
    stupid, stupid, stupid is the name of an album by english band, black grape, featuring the inimitable shaun ryder

    well worth a listen
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129055].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    New regulations will stop kids from doing farm chores.
    I guess they don't want kids to learn how to be self sufficient. a LOT of farm chores really AREN'T dangerous! Then again, people have DIED from walking on the grass, or cement in the CITY! Do you have ANY idea how dangerous this world can be?

    Can't round up cattle on horseback as you might fall off.
    So you can't even ride horseback? WOW! There used to be a disney story, IIRC, about a person that was homeless, IIRC, and he ends up in a circus. He does all the messy jobs, etc... and eventually becomes a costar in a show, ON HORSEBACK! It may have been a cute story, but it DID show the hazards, etc... and people HAVE done the same sort of thing. GEE, I only rode horseback maybe a dozen times. One time, I let a horse have his own way, and he showed me his home! Still, I liked the experience.

    Can't do physical labor like lifting hay bales as you might get hurt.
    Well, there ARE other ways to get the job done!

    Can't operate farm equipment as it might be dangerous.
    Again, MOST equipment is NO more dangerous than elsewhere.

    I've seen stupid regulations in the past few years - but this one takes the cake.
    YOU'VE SAID IT!

    I've never seen a govt action that runs as counter to the American lifestyle as this new set of regulations.

    Let's not do anything to build a work ethic in our kids. Let's turn farm kids into the same lard butts as those who sit watching TV every day in town.
    YEP

    The reason schools run 9 months in the U.S. - is because it was always assumed kids were busy working on family farms during the growing season. Now, in this entitlement society - we say your kid can't do chores?
    YEP

    Family farms are a family activity. Everyone plays a part in keeping things running and getting crops in. This sounds like an attempt to destroy what's left of family farms.

    Child Labor Laws | Farming | Department of Labor | The Daily Caller
    WOW!

    You know, going back to teachers, bullies, etc... Let me tell you.

    I once took a drafting class. For whatever reason, maybe because in the SUMMER it served as a kids camp, the drafting class was in front of a rather well equiped shop that provided equipment/supplies for wood, metal, and clay working.

    Well, I was working with some stuff, and the guy had the audacity to say I should do this and that, for "safety", though I was plenty safe, etc... after all, I worked for about a decade with MANY things without so much as a SCRATCH. HE was missing several fingers!

    One day, a few bullies came in, while I was sanding a jewelry box for my mother. I was bored, and figured it was a nice project. They tried to push ME into the sander. I could have had my hands, face, etc... disfigured and damaged. WHO KNOWS? The "teacher" that claimed to care SO much for my safety did NOTHING!!!!!!! The ONLY thing that saved me was some quick thinking, and that jewelry box. You see, the corners of that box are BEVELED! WHY? Because one corner was damaged because I sacrificed IT to delay my being pushed into the sander long enough that I could turn it off. I did the other corners later to match. BTW I don't think I ever got scratched, I wasn't cut, and today have all my parts.

    I guess the government is like that "teacher". An $%^&* that will PROFESS safety while not actually caring!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129135].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    And I always thought the answer to this:
    "How do you know if a politician is lying? "
    Was this:
    "the lips are moving."
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129378].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      And I always thought the answer to this:
      "How do you know if a politician is lying? "
      Was this:
      "the lips are moving."
      NOPE! They can move their hand, shake their head, grunt, cough, blink, or just stay silent!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129518].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author flowbee77
    I agree with Dave.
    I personally know several under-age children working on farms; it happens and it happens a lot. They leave the house at 7am and don't come back until 10pm or later. It does happen. And the parents let this happen because frankly they could not survive without the extra income.

    It's all about cheap labor to increase profits for some of these corps.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6129730].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
      Originally Posted by flowbee77 View Post

      I agree with Dave.
      I personally know several under-age children working on farms; it happens and it happens a lot. They leave the house at 7am and don't come back until 10pm or later. It does happen. And the parents let this happen because frankly they could not survive without the extra income.

      It's all about cheap labor to increase profits for some of these corps.
      So the survival of the family is less important than the denial of 'cheap labor'? Seems awfully cold-hearted to me.
      Signature

      The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

      Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6133159].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        I'm beginning to wonder if some of these more outrageous "new rules" are being proposed just to raise a fuss so the announcement of "we've dropped it as we are listening to you" can be made Seems to be a common thread recently.

        I agree with Steve, though. When survival of the group is at stake- there are no limits to what members of the group can or should do to survive.

        In years past, farm children didn't work because they had "mean parents" - they worked because the work on a farm is never done and it takes all hands to make a living. It's a great way of life that builds a strong family and self sufficient young adults - and it's sadly disappearing.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6134000].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          It's amazing what a little misinformation can do. Great victory here for .... errr, ...umm, ... not sure who. "Survival of the family"? Good one.

          Although family farms were actually exempted from the proposed rules, many opponents cast them as an assault on family farms and rural traditions, saying the White House wanted to keep children from doing even small chores. In fact, the rules would only have affected minors who were formally employed and on farm payrolls, preventing them from operating heavy machinery, handling tobacco crops, working in grain silos or performing other jobs considered potentially dangerous....

          Although the rules would not actually have banned minors from doing family farm work -- in fact, they could have done even the work deemed potentially dangerous on family farms, due to a parental exemption -- backers of the proposals said the misinformation was difficult to overcome.

          "We felt that these were commonsense protections that maintained the traditions of family farms and would have saved many kids' lives. We're sad about it," said Lopez, who herself was a migrant worker as a child. "All the misinformation being put out there was really misrepresenting what these rules were. The benefits were overshadowed. The ones who will be paying for that is kids."
          Child Labor Farm Rules Scrapped By White House Under Political Pressure

          Congratulations on the "win".
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6134076].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    Maybe I'm just a country hick, but it seems to me that if the proposed rules were as innocuous as some have insisted they were, were actually just an "update of a 42-year-old law", that the administration wouldn't have backed down.

    DOL WHD: Washington News Release
    "The Obama administration is firmly committed to promoting family farmers and respecting the rural way of life, especially the role that parents and other family members play in passing those traditions down through the generations. The Obama administration is also deeply committed to listening and responding to what Americans across the country have to say about proposed rules and regulations.


    "As a result, the Department of Labor is announcing today the withdrawal of the proposed rule dealing with children under the age of 16 who work in agricultural vocations


    "The decision to withdraw this rule – including provisions to define the 'parental exemption' – was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms. To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.
    Good work, people who responded. It seems to have worked, this time.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6133100].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Thanks. It was just another attempt to make laws that weren't needed.

    It almost bares out Kay's post above.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6134193].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Tim,
    I have said in many threads lately that that is what both partys seem to have forgotten.That their job really is one of compromise.Finding a middle ground instead of trying to ramrod only their agenda down everyone's throat.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6135006].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

      I agree with that completely. In most issues a common ground or a happy medium can be found. However, these days you don't see many who want to find that balance. the word compromise is suddenly a bad thing. It's a shame really.
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Tim,
      I have said in many threads lately that that is what both partys seem to have forgotten.That their job really is one of compromise.Finding a middle ground instead of trying to ramrod only their agenda down everyone's throat.
      Are we forgetting gentlemen that this is an election year? It's not about compromise right now. It's about undermining each other to get the win. Make the other side look heartless, incompetent, etc.

      Business as usual for politicians...
      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6135435].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Mike,
    "Business as usual for politicians..."
    That sums it up very well.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6135523].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ersxaer
    Things that make your mad or stupid, will make you smile in the future.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6138226].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "You don't believe in a limited government or a government of the people, by the people and for the people. "

    I think most of us that enter in to these discussions want exactly that.
    And that is what has been taken away from us.
    But I blame both sides,not one or the other.

    I think we all at least think we have principals,but each has varying degrees.
    It what part of that are you willing to give up to compromise?
    Seems neither side feels they should give up anything.
    Hence no common ground and America continues to divide itself.
    The rest of the world doesn't need terrorists to destroy America's values and dreams,we are doing a great job by ourselves.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6139110].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "You don't believe in a limited government or a government of the people, by the people and for the people. "

      I think most of us that enter in to these discussions want exactly that.
      And that is what has been taken away from us.
      But I blame both sides,not one or the other.

      I think we all at least think we have principals,but each has varying degrees.
      It what part of that are you willing to give up to compromise?
      Seems neither side feels they should give up anything.
      Hence no common ground and America continues to divide itself.
      The rest of the world doesn't need terrorists to destroy America's values and dreams,we are doing a great job by ourselves.
      You got that right.
      I was reading an article just the other day that said you could cut 4,000 federal laws and regulations from the books and no one would notice a difference. Of course that would still leave over 2,000 laws and regulations on the books.
      I love it when you oppose a new regulation and you get the argument that you must be opposed to all regulations. That has to be the stupidest thing a person could say, yet I see that "argument" here all the time.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6139195].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    One person once said that a dollar could be taxed for 3 saved. The result was that it was apparently read as that they could raise taxes 1000 for every dollar they needed!

    I have a compromise! Why don't we CUT taxes $3 for every $1 extra they spend! And if they fail to do so, have them comply with CURRENT law for all others, and throw them in JAIL for embezzlement! ALSO, to avoid one of their tricks, $3 means $3!!!!!!!!!!

    ENGLISH... $3-$2=$1-$0=$1 (TAXES-DEDUCTIONS)
    GOVERNMENT... $3-$2=$3-$0=$3

    So the government often lowers deductions when they decrease the tax rate. Look at the tefra deal in the mid eighties. So sometimes a lower tax rate means HIGHER taxes!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6139226].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    Let's just have the children stay inside and watch TV so they don't get hurt.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6139834].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
      Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

      Let's just have the children stay inside and watch TV so they don't get hurt.
      It would have to be a federal building. We're not capable of keeping them safe at home either...:rolleyes:
      Signature
      Professional Googler
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6139887].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    It seems that this law has already been repealed. Viral internet campaigns do have some impact!

    Children | Farm Labor | Regulations | Withdrawal | The Daily Caller
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6140321].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    We already have laws against hiring illegals - and kids of certain ages. Why don't they enforce them instead of writing new laws? Because NEW laws are written in a way that will take the right of parenting away from the parent and place it in the hands of government.


    Tim - I'd be more open to Anarchy than to a government that has no restraint.

    Kim, I live in a right to work state also. All "right to work" laws do is allow corporations to violate every human right a person has in the name of employment. There are states out here that the only reason they are right to work states is because the wording was rigged so deceptively that people thought they were voting against the laws, when in fact they were voting for it. If we didn't have right to work states, there would be a lot of major corps being completely shut down. It's disgraceful how they are running companies now -- adults could use a few rights back themselves at this point rather than seeing how many we can take away from kids. I would be proud of any kid, no matter what age, that could look a g-agent in the face and say "hey, f*** off" if told they could not ride a horse. I loved to ride horses and knew how to bridle and saddle one by the time I was 5. I can't imagine being told I was not allowed to do so because I "might get hurt". Yeah, life is dangerous.

    Wonder how we managed without uncle sam's perverted nose up our butts. I know we were all a lot happier doing it, though. People have become extremely serious and sense of humor is completely being wiped out with excessive attention to political correctness. On one hand we have to watch everything we say and do and on the other hand, people are becoming so "protected" that they don't even seem to know better anymore than to walk out in front of moving cars. If you talk to the people that were freed from behind the wall - they are warning us to put a stop to it right now before its too late for us. One of the first things people did when they were freed over there was run across the border and buy fresh fruit. Think about that one for awhile. How bad do we let it get before we start tossing fascists out of office? How late is "too late" to stop them from making our life the same hell as those people's lives were?
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6140841].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      We already have laws against hiring illegals - and kids of certain ages. Why don't they enforce them instead of writing new laws? Because NEW laws are written in a way that will take the right of parenting away from the parent and place it in the hands of government.


      Tim - I'd be more open to Anarchy than to a government that has no restraint.

      Kim, I live in a right to work state also. All "right to work" laws do is allow corporations to violate every human right a person has in the name of employment. There are states out here that the only reason they are right to work states is because the wording was rigged so deceptively that people thought they were voting against the laws, when in fact they were voting for it. If we didn't have right to work states, there would be a lot of major corps being completely shut down. It's disgraceful how they are running companies now -- adults could use a few rights back themselves at this point rather than seeing how many we can take away from kids. I would be proud of any kid, no matter what age, that could look a g-agent in the face and say "hey, f*** off" if told they could not ride a horse. I loved to ride horses and knew how to bridle and saddle one by the time I was 5. I can't imagine being told I was not allowed to do so because I "might get hurt". Yeah, life is dangerous.

      Wonder how we managed without uncle sam's perverted nose up our butts. I know we were all a lot happier doing it, though. People have become extremely serious and sense of humor is completely being wiped out with excessive attention to political correctness. On one hand we have to watch everything we say and do and on the other hand, people are becoming so "protected" that they don't even seem to know better anymore than to walk out in front of moving cars. If you talk to the people that were freed from behind the wall - they are warning us to put a stop to it right now before its too late for us. One of the first things people did when they were freed over there was run across the border and buy fresh fruit. Think about that one for awhile. How bad do we let it get before we start tossing fascists out of office? How late is "too late" to stop them from making our life the same hell as those people's lives were?
      I agree with ALL you said ***BUT***....

      A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.
      In indiana, HERE is the law: http://www.nrtw.org/files/nrtw/India...o_Work_Law.pdf

      Ever hear of the movie: "gentleman's agreement"?
      It is about the exposing of a gentleman's agreement once used to exclude jewish people from some functions. In CAlifornia, and probably other states, deeds STILL have clauses saying that blacks are NOT to live there. It IS history, after all, and an original document. State law forbids them to now be honored. Well, many jobs, industries, etc... FORBID ANYONE to work or be hired unless they belong to a given union. Likewise, they are forbidden to belong in the union unless they pay dues and agree with the union.

      The right to work law merely curtails the ability of the union to restrict the ability of a person to work.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6141753].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Yeah. Me too. But realistically, we aren't close to either.

      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post



      Tim - I'd be more open to Anarchy than to a government that has no restraint.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143424].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Yeah. Me too. But realistically, we aren't close to either.
        You must have missed this:
        Bill Gives The IRS Power To: Authorize The Removal Of The Right To Own A Firearm – | Congressman Tom Tancredo
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143465].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Sal - You know I don't usually buy conspiracies...but this is interesting.

          This happens at the same time the IRS has asked to add 4000 agents "for the new health care program"???

          Really convenient timing, isn't it?
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143637].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            Sal - You know I don't usually buy conspiracies...but this is interesting.

            This happens at the same time the IRS has asked to add 4000 agents "for the new health care program"???

            Really convenient timing, isn't it?
            Never really did answer this post.

            The health care bill is not HC reform -- it's just a new way of doing insurance, and it's going to cost a bundle. There is even a provision in the bill that will charge people 3% taxes on any home they sell to help pay for it. Our health care didn't get reformed. Nothing is cheaper. Treatments will not be improved. It has only been taken over by the gov who will force you to pay for insurance.....and many economists are saying it will cost a fortune more. There will be a lot more "mandatory this and that, too". You will do as told no matter what they make you take, or else.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153283].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              Never really did answer this post.

              The health care bill is not HC reform -- it's just a new way of doing insurance, and it's going to cost a bundle.

              There is even a provision in the bill that will charge people 3% taxes on any home they sell to help pay for it. Our health care didn't get reformed.

              Nothing is cheaper. Treatments will not be improved. It has only been taken over by the gov who will force you to pay for insurance.....and many economists are saying it will cost a fortune more. There will be a lot more "mandatory this and that, too". You will do as told no matter what they make you take, or else.

              Balderdash!

              The CBO isn't saying it's going to cost a fortune.

              As a matter of fact their revised estimates are that the law will be a wash in the first 10 years and then save the fed gov about 100 billion a year thereafter.


              I'll trust our "go to source" on the economic costs, pluses and minuses of legislation verses a bunch of hacks.


              I'll trust The CBO who has been the undisputed source of scoring legislation for almost 40 years.

              The CBO was created as a nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

              The CBO's mandate is to provide Congress with:

              Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analysis to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on a wide array of programs covered by the federal budget;

              And the information and estimates required by the Congressional budget process.


              BTW...


              Don't make me re-list all the new benefits included in the law.

              - Policies may not be cheaper...

              ... but the "new" set of benefits cushion the blow of prices not going down as fast as we would like them..


              - 3% surtax tax on all home sales?


              I think not.

              According to Forbes...


              "Currently, when a person sells a home they have lived in longer than 2 years, they can exclude the first $250,000 of gains.

              A couple can exclude the first $500,000 of gains.

              For example, if a couple has a $1,000,000 home with $600,000 of gains, they would have to pay the 3.8% tax on only $100,000 of the gain.

              Given that very few people are sitting on large gains right now and the majority of home sales (not just gains) are for less than $250,000,...


              ... this tax will hit truly only a small number of people."


              Even Forbes does not agree with your dire assessment.


              If you have a problem with the mandate just say it.



              Let me guess???


              The U.N. is making us do this.



              TL



              Ps. If you have a problem with the mandate just say it.
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153474].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Balderdash!

                The CBO isn't saying it's going to cost a fortune.

                She didn't say it did. she said,and I quote:
                "and many economists are saying it will cost a fortune more."

                As a matter of fact their revised estimates are that the law will be a wash in the first 10 years and then save the fed gov about 100 billion a year thereafter.


                I'll trust our "go to source" on the economic costs, pluses and minuses of legislation verses a bunch of hacks.

                Who are your "go-to" sources? The below named organization?
                Yeah,they are honest. :rolleyes:


                The CBO.


                Don't make me re-list all the new benefits included in the law.

                - Policies may not be cheaper...

                ... but the "new" set of benefits cushion the blow of prices not going down as fast as we would like them..


                - 3% surtax tax on all home sales?


                I think not.

                According to Forbes...


                "Currently, when a person sells a home they have lived in longer than 2 years, they can exclude the first $250,000 of gains.

                A couple can exclude the first $500,000 of gains.

                For example, if a couple has a $1,000,000 home with $600,000 of gains, they would have to pay the 3.8% tax on only $100,000 of the gain.

                Given that very few people are sitting on large gains right now and the majority of home sales (not just gains) are for less than $250,000,...


                ... this tax will hit truly only a small number of people."


                Even Forbes does not agree with your dire assessment.

                Again,you are comparing apples to oranges. She was talking about a 3% surtax tax on all home sales,and you talk about the capital gains. Two different things.

                If you have a problem with the mandate just say it.

                I think she did,rather well.



                Let me guess???


                The U.N. is making us do this.

                Oh,you one funny man.ha ha hee hee :rolleyes:



                TL



                Ps. If you have a problem with the mandate just say it.
                Again, I think she did say it.
                But I see you still love the tactic of making sarcastic insults at people.
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153605].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          It ALSO authorizes them to deny a passport! Another works to basically OBLITERATE free speech!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144858].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Yeah. Me too. But realistically, we aren't close to either.
        We ARE close to BOTH! The government has little restraint, and is working to remove any appearance of restraint. I could point you to bills that are ALREADY in congress to prove it BUT... And SOME segments of society, like "the occupy movement" have accepted anarchy. Accepted by the GOVERNMENT!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144850].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Haha. We can't possibly be close to both since they are opposites. Me thinks you are just a contrarian. You like telling people they are wrong so you try to figure out a way to explain it and that's why so many people say stuff like "huh?" or "what on earth are you talking about Steve?. :/

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          We ARE close to BOTH! The government has little restraint, and is working to remove any appearance of restraint. I could point you to bills that are ALREADY in congress to prove it BUT... And SOME segments of society, like "the occupy movement" have accepted anarchy. Accepted by the GOVERNMENT!

          Steve
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6145516].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Haha. We can't possibly be close to both since they are opposites. Me thinks you are just a contrarian. You like telling people they are wrong so you try to figure out a way to explain it and that's why so many people say stuff like "huh?" or "what on earth are you talking about Steve?. :/
            As I explained, two parts of society doing things two different ways. They WOULD be mutually exclusive if all were treated the same, but they AREN'T!!!!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6146641].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Well, I was talking about the nation as a whole, not small sections of the nation.
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              As I explained, two parts of society doing things two different ways. They WOULD be mutually exclusive if all were treated the same, but they AREN'T!!!!

              Steve
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6147295].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "All "right to work" laws do is allow corporations to violate every human right a person has in the name of employment. "

    Absolutely correct, no argument from me there.

    " people are becoming so "protected" that they don't even seem to know better anymore "

    Sounds like building a chicken coop to keep the foxes out,when in reality its to keep the chickens in.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6141247].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Steve - you need to review the Right to Work laws in ID, NV, OR etc. You would be stunned at what they are and how they are used. Anyone who works under the right to work laws can tell you that what you have just said isn't even starting to be close to what we are talking about. Had you been working in ID or NV when you had your heart attack - they probably wouldn't have even waited for you to get out of the hospital to call you and fire you. Many corps out here don't put up with employees getting sick - and they don't have to. The laws here let them fire you for ANYTHING. I've not seen anyone able to get a "wrongful dismissal" suit through that law yet - even when it's obvious discrimination, because legally, they can't be held to answer the question of "why".
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143354].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Steve - you need to review the Right to Work laws in ID, NV, OR etc. You would be stunned at what they are and how they are used. Anyone who works under the right to work laws can tell you that what you have just said isn't even starting to be close to what we are talking about. Had you been working in ID or NV when you had your heart attack - they probably wouldn't have even waited for you to get out of the hospital to call you and fire you. Many corps out here don't put up with employees getting sick - and they don't have to. The laws here let them fire you for ANYTHING. I've not seen anyone able to get a "wrongful dismissal" suit through that law yet - even when it's obvious discrimination, because legally, they can't be held to answer the question of "why".
      Idahos law seems benign ALSO: Right to Work States: Idaho | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

      Admittedly, I HAVE tried to keep 100% duty, with NO sick time, etc... Hiring is just so caprecious. It is really incredible. When I was out due to my aorta problem, I kept changing the reason for my being out. Sick, vacation, etc... They would have violated the contract to fire me. Still, I was shocked! I only needed like 2 weeks to recover, and they gave me over 2 months. Admittedly, I WAS lucky!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144836].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Bills are not conspiracies. Do you know what having your rights controlled by a bank is called? It's fascism and there's nothing they can do to even start to hide what we've become if they pass this one. Forced citizenship. If people don't start recalling every legislator who even proposes something like this, we can start wearing swastikas. And if anyone yells Godwin on that statement I'd like to know exactly WHAT they would call it if a bank has a right without due process to tax you, and restrict your travel and gun ownership at will. I call it fascism. Plain and simple.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6143682].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Bills are not conspiracies. Do you know what having your rights controlled by a bank is called? It's fascism and there's nothing they can do to even start to hide what we've become if they pass this one. Forced citizenship. If people don't start recalling every legislator who even proposes something like this, we can start wearing swastikas. And if anyone yells Godwin on that statement I'd like to know exactly WHAT they would call it if a bank has a right without due process to tax you, and restrict your travel and gun ownership at will. I call it fascism. Plain and simple.
      A bill IS a conspiracy! SURE, in the CURRENT environment, with thomas and some media, you could CLAIM it isn't secret, and thus not a TRUE conspiracy. Just a FEW problems with that!

      1. Thomas was recently created. I THINK when clinton was president. Before that, things were MUCH harder to see.
      2. They keep trying to limt the speech of a group that brought a lot of light to such things.
      3. They have limited some speech.
      4. A bill in front of congress will make it a CRIME for a "corporation" to say ANYTHING about such things. Also, anything said that works against a politicians plans can be an offense. THINK ABOUT IT! To widly broadcast such things is expensive and risky. HOW do people do it? Through CORPORATIONS! FORGET about NBR, ABC, NBC, DISNEY, OPRAH, ETC.... They are CORPORATIONS!

      BESIDES, with statements like "Remove the first ; in the 2nd sentence of bill ### and replace and with or in the following sentence", is it REALLY clear?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6144902].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Tim,
    I disagree, our current government has no restraints or qualms about taking away the rights of the citizens and is extremely pro-corporation over the population. I don't see how any rational individual can say otherwise.

    Steve,
    "he right to work law merely curtails the ability of the union to restrict the ability of a person to work."

    That's the publicity side of the laws but it is not true. Right To WOrk Laws and state that support them are both states that want to advocate union busting and the ability to fire without due cause.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6145176].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Tim,
      I disagree, our current government has no restraints or qualms about taking away the rights of the citizens and is extremely pro-corporation over the population. I don't see how any rational individual can say otherwise.

      Steve,
      "he right to work law merely curtails the ability of the union to restrict the ability of a person to work."

      That's the publicity side of the laws but it is not true. Right To WOrk Laws and state that support them are both states that want to advocate union busting and the ability to fire without due cause.
      Well, that is what I expect a pro union person to say, but they say NOTHING about termination outside of if you are pro union, and picketing that disturbs the business.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6145234].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Steve,
    Am I pro union? Some may so say,but I am pro A Decent American Life for everyone. In the perfect world unions wouldn't ever be needed,but this is not a perfect world.

    It IS true I was a union steward for 10 years while I worked in the US Postal Service.
    And you would not believe some of the things management did.
    I saw abuse on very decent people just trying to do their job by managers on power trips.
    I had a letter carrier friend of mine that for a month straight a manager would stand behind him every day the whole time he was getting his mail ready,and finally my friend snapped. He got fired. Without the union he would have lost his job forever. With the union,the manager ended up getting punished and transferred to another location and my friend got his job back.....after 2 years of negotiation. He almost lost his home and he did lose the ability to take care of his family for those two years.
    So,in my opinion, bad management demands the presense of a union.

    Now,that being said, unions, just like any other organization can and at times do have themselves taken over by corrupt factions. That very event happening is why I quite being a steward. I was willing to fight for people to help them,I was not willing to fight for the bad people that took over and made the union into something to despise.
    In other words, just in the big world scheme,it was business as usual.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6145309].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Steve,
      Am I pro union? Some may so say,but I am pro A Decent American Life for everyone. In the perfect world unions wouldn't ever be needed,but this is not a perfect world.
      I have said for a LONG time that I would be HAPPY with unions if they worked to allow people to be paid their DUE. That does NOT mean that a certain rank, or certain job, means you are paid a given wage. It should be based on the PERSON! In otherwords, if a person is incompetent, the union should kick them out. After all, incompetence makes bargaining harder for all, and costs EVERYONE respect. But unions DON'T work that way!

      IMAGINE if unions did what I want! RESPECT would go UP! Productivity would go UP! Problems and hazards would DROP! TROUBLE would go DOWN! The need for H/R would go DOWN! Costs for companies would go DOWN!(Less waste, no H/R, less trouble, and productivity would be up) And wages could (GET THIS FOLKS!!!), go UP!!!!!!!

      You would not only get MORE money, but its value would go UP!

      It IS true I was a union steward for 10 years while I worked in the US Postal Service.
      And you would not believe some of the things management did.
      I saw abuse on very decent people just trying to do their job by managers on power trips.
      I had a letter carrier friend of mine that for a month straight a manager would stand behind him every day the whole time he was getting his mail ready,and finally my friend snapped. He got fired. Without the union he would have lost his job forever. With the union,the manager ended up getting punished and transferred to another location and my friend got his job back.....after 2 years of negotiation. He almost lost his home and he did lose the ability to take care of his family for those two years.
      So,in my opinion, bad management demands the presense of a union.
      Yeah, I have had SIMILAR problems with bosses. I keep telling them! Load my cube with lots of people! It makes me tire faster, I am angrier, and my performance DROPS! THEY DON'T CARE!

      Now,that being said, unions, just like any other organization can and at times do have themselves taken over by corrupt factions. That very event happening is why I quite being a steward. I was willing to fight for people to help them,I was not willing to fight for the bad people that took over and made the union into something to despise.
      In other words, just in the big world scheme,it was business as usual.
      EXACTLY!!!!!!! And THAT is why I hate them!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6145475].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post





        Yeah, I have had SIMILAR problems with bosses. I keep telling them! Load my cube with lots of people! It makes me tire faster, I am angrier, and my performance DROPS! THEY DON'T CARE!



        EXACTLY!!!!!!! And THAT is why I hate them!

        Steve
        Corruption is everywhere Steve, I don't hate the union completely because it went from good to bad.For all I know it may have gone back to good by now. I stopped being involved when I quit the post office.

        I don't have America because our current government system is corrupt,and there is no doubt that it is, I hope for and work for changes that will make us a great country again.




        Then it sounds like to me you have placed your hate at the wrong people. Again, if management were decent responsible caring corporations,er,my bad,I mean people, then there would be no need for unions,period,
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6145636].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Corruption is everywhere Steve, I don't hate the union completely because it went from good to bad.For all I know it may have gone back to good by now. I stopped being involved when I quit the post office.

          I don't have America because our current government system is corrupt,and there is no doubt that it is, I hope for and work for changes that will make us a great country again.

          Then it sounds like to me you have placed your hate at the wrong people. Again, if management were decent responsible caring corporations,er,my bad,I mean people, then there would be no need for unions,period,
          RIGHT, but unions have been where they aren't needed. HECK, bagging is a minimum wage type job, and I heard THEY have unions! And what of SAG? A LOT of the lower level workers/actors are paid a PITANCE! And what of the STARS? It is NO secret that they and their MANAGERS NEGOTIATE! Just yesterday, I watched a show about planet of the apes, and they spoke of how charlton heston was BEGGED to come back!!!!! BEGGED! WHY? For continuity and star power pull. Charlton heston compromised, and ended up spending very little time on the screen. BTW IMAGINE if they and all others were in unions! Planet of the apes, for example, may never have been filmed. EVERYONE would want like $1M +, and a piece of the film.

          I could go on all day about this.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6146715].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post


            I could go on all day about this.

            Steve
            No point because you see it your way and I see it mine.
            But we are still friends.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6147026].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
    Steve,

    Maybe you haven't considered one small glaring fact...

    Have you not noticed that over the last couple decades, as union numbers/power have dropped, so goes the middle class...?

    (hint: they're NOT moving on up, the middle class, that is...)
    Signature
    Professional Googler
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6145549].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

      Steve,

      Maybe you haven't considered one small glaring fact...

      Have you not noticed that over the last couple decades, as union numbers/power have dropped, so goes the middle class...?

      (hint: they're NOT moving on up, the middle class, that is...)
      At this point, EVERYONE is going down! Even the REALLY filthy rich! Let's say WB had $50B. It would have been worth $50B. NOW, it would be worth maybe $30B, and he would need another $33B in TODAY'S dollars JUST to break EVEN!

      There have been times that the unions have had a LOT of power, and the buying power of the general public has DROPPED!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6146674].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    Then it sounds like to me you have placed your hate at the wrong people. Again, if management were decent responsible caring corporations,er,my bad,I mean people, then there would be no need for unions,period,
    If people could be depended on to always be good and decent, there wouldn't be a need for governments, unions, any of that. But they can't be, so there is. But in creating the institutions that have the ability to coerce behavior, we also create a power structure that certain people are drawn to.

    There will always be those kinds of people whose every waking moment is filled with the joy of telling someone else what to do, how and when to do it, and where they can or can't do it.

    One of the beauties of the U.S. Constitution is that the group of men who wrote it recognized and tried to account for human nature. For the most part, they did a good job. They created a form of government that valued freedom over the subjugation of government by placing safeguards on the amount of power the federal government could wield.

    But they made mistakes, like all men do. They ambiguously worded some parts of the document, which at the time was innocuous, but now has come to bite their descendants in the ass. One of those sections is the Commerce Clause. Another mistake was in not specifically laying out the power of the judiciary.

    All the strife we're seeing now is due to one thing, and one thing only: a certain group of people wants to tell another group of people what, where, how, when, and why to do a certain thing, and they're being stymied by the constraints of the Constitution.

    Or at least they should be. That's where the fight is. What do you do when the people who comprise the government refuse to abide by the rules that formed the government in the first place? What recourse do we have?
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6146308].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    stevejohnson,

    RIGHT ON! I think the framers did an EXCELLENT job! Many of the ambiguities are by ignoring history and context. For example, the 2nd amendment. They made it clear that they wanted to be able to restrain the government. By definition, that is IMPOSSIBLE for the government to do. You NEVER have a fox guard a hen house. Also, they are NOT rights for the citizen. The preamble said those rights are inalienable. They are a DENIAL of rights to the government. Of course, they have plenty of papers that were released that state the intent.

    I heard from at least one spot that the idea of the senate was to help balance out the disparity between the large and small states in the house, because the small states didn't like the first draft.

    And some states in the south wanted slaves counted to determine electors. Obviously, since they were not allowed to vote, that wasn't fair. Still, THAT is where the 3/5ths value comes in. Hey, if it were 5/5ths, ironically, we might have had slavery for a longer period. Still, it said all slaves, NOT blacks, so that shouldn't be an issue today anyway.

    Besides, if a government needed an army, what would be the point in saying that they could arm the people? NOPE! It says that since guns are needed for a free state that the people should NOT be PROHIBITED to have them.

    Oh well, this isn't meant to be political, simply to show how the constitution is NOT so ambiguous, etc....

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6146867].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I don't know why every thread has to turn into Ron Paul bashing.
    I scrolled up and didn't see him name mentioned anywhere.

    If I missed it please show me where I did. Admittedly I skimmed this last page,didn't read every word,so maybe I did.

    You and TL don't like him, that's very evident.
    And it's evident a lot of us do like him.

    I'm not interested in voting party lines, I'm interested in voting what's best for America.
    You think obama is,vote for him, I won't think less of you if you do.
    If you think Romny is,vote for him,I won't think less of you if you do.
    If you think Ron Paul is,vote for him and I will shake your hand for doing what I think is best for America.

    This thread WAS about our legislative branches sticking their nose where it doesn't belong and making STUPID laws that don't need to be made,instead of doing their REAL job of fixing the problems with America that they themselves created.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6147654].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      I took his name out Kim. I really don't think it was bashing him. Just using his name because he is a leader in this kind of 10th amendment interpretation. I don't dislike the guy either really and have said quite a few times that I like a lot of what he says about the US foreign policy. Anyways, I'll delete this post in a minute also.

      By the way, I think I have only brought up his name in two threads. maybe you are thinking of facebook also?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6147688].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    No Tim, this is the only time I was referring about you, 99% of the time if was TL.
    I do understand your reference and you are right, a lot of people do interpret it the way you said.
    Guess I was just cranky afte a nap and the first thing I was was him mentioned when I thought it was completely off topic.
    No need to delete the thread either.
    (I'm more awake and not as cranky)
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6147725].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    In another letter, he wrote:

    Quote:
    With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
    Yeah, that was an unfortunate choice of words. It means either......

    1. LAND/COUNTRY! Which means things like import/export duties, federal procurement of needed materials, trade with other countries, protecting waterways, military, etc... The ESTABLISHMENT of facilities for basic life. You know....Things that ******EVERY****** government has done throughout all of history!

    2. People. Which means shelter, food, and can morph into healthcare, phone, electricity, water, clothing, heat, cold, etc.... In otherwords, a comunistic state.

    So the key word is NOT welfare, but GENERAL! It doesn't say that you get that new dress, or car, that you want, but that you CAN!

    I always went with #1 since it is logical, general, and fits with the context of everything else. Besides, #2 is FAR too broad and would lead to the destruction of SO much. And HOW is stuff to be monitored? I mean there is ONLY so much food, power, etc.... What if a group hoarded, etc... Others could starve, etc... Money DOES help to limit its use.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6150515].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    We have a new exec. order that will allow the gov to seize food, water, land, transportation...and something else (can't remember) in PEACE time. We're pretty muchly cooked as far as the federal gov goes. There is no restraint in that kind of
    seizure during peace time......and that kind of seizure comes with martial law, too.

    We let them go WAY too far. SHould have started recalls as soon as they pulled the
    bail-outs on us.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153043].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trcapro
    The bottom line is that the government is continually trying to stick its nose where it doesn't belong. I'm no libertarian but sometimes those guys do have a point. There is far too much regulation and the problem is that the more that it continues to influence every aspect of our lives, the more difficult it becomes to see where the line as at which it should stop.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153103].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by trcapro View Post

      The bottom line is that the government is continually trying to stick its nose where it doesn't belong. I'm no libertarian but sometimes those guys do have a point. There is far too much regulation and the problem is that the more that it continues to influence every aspect of our lives, the more difficult it becomes to see where the line as at which it should stop.
      I don't think it's too much regulation. More a case of misplaced regulation.

      People should be cut some slack, whereas corporations, especially Wall St, should be regulated up the wazoo. Instead things seem to be headed in the opposite direction.
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153174].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        I don't think it's too much regulation. More a case of misplaced regulation.

        People should be cut some slack, whereas corporations, especially Wall St, should be regulated up the wazoo. Instead things seem to be headed in the opposite direction.

        I agree that WS should be regulated up the wazoo X 2.


        All The Best!!


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153195].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I've always felt we needed health care reform,but I was never for obama's plan.
    They could save billions by doing a few simple things.
    First the need to quite the medicare "supply" fraud that is rampant.
    There a few billion saved right there.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153321].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153545].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator

      That is not true.

      It reminds me of the death panel lie.

      I can give you a bunch of links that refutes that figure.

      It's simply a planned mis-reading of the numbers by opponents of the law that Yahoo pointed to.

      Here's just one link to refute that bogus claim...

      Krauthammer Brings Thoroughly Debunked Health Care Cost Myth To The Washington Post | Media Matters for America


      If you have a problem with the mandate just say it.


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153650].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        That is not true.

        It reminds me of the death panel lie.




        TL
        It is true... Right from the CBO itself...

        http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...0Estimates.pdf


        The only thing that has changed is the 10 year time period - It's still a fact that it's going to cost over a trilliion and a half dollars over a 10 year time frame.

        If you read the CBO report, it also says that less people will be insured.

        If you have a problem with the CBO just say it...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153806].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Gary, this comes from the link you posted:

          "CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA
          will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period--about
          $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period"

          "The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions ($1,496 billion
          through 2021) is about $50 billion higher than last year's projection; however, the
          other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross
          costs, also have increased in CBO and JCT's estimates (to $413 billion), leading
          to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally"

          So, gross cost estimates went up but net cost estimates went down.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153864].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author garyv
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post


            So, gross cost estimates went up but net cost estimates went down.
            This is why cost estimates went down... also from the link I posted:

            "Finally, penalties collected from individuals who do not have health insurance are projected to increase because the number of individuals who will remain uninsured is now estimated to be higher than was estimated in March 2011."

            If that doesn't make you want to reject the Affordable Care Act, then you're just a glutton for punishment.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153912].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              This is why cost estimates went down... also from the link I posted:

              "Finally, penalties collected from individuals who do not have health insurance are projected to increase because the number of individuals who will remain uninsured is now estimated to be higher than was estimated in March 2011."

              If that doesn't make you want to reject the Affordable Care Act, then you're just a glutton for punishment.

              IMHO...


              The benefits to the American people from the ACA clearly out weight the problems with the ACA by a long shot.


              My fav bene...


              The eventual bene of not going bankrupt because of a medical problem is a great bene that will save at least 600K Americans ( maybe lots more ) and their families...

              .. a year.

              I know we have a huge country but that's way too many people being unnecessarily hurt in more ways than one by a health care problem and it needs to stop.


              If it's not stopped sooner or later, it's going to be me or someone I know and care for.


              All The Best!

              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154055].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              That doesn't bother me because of this:

              "Compared with prior law, the ACA is now estimated by CBO and JCT to reduce
              the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 30 million
              to 33 million in 2016 and subsequent years, leaving 26 million to 27 million
              nonelderly residents uninsured in those years (see Table 3, at the end of this
              report). The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance is projected to rise
              from 82 percent in 2012 to 93 percent by 2022."

              Getting 33 million insured is a good thing in my book. What are the critics of ACA offering to get people insured? Nothing really. There's nothing out there to replace this bill if it is overturned because having 50 million people uninsured isn't seen as a problem by some. Go figure.

              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              This is why cost estimates went down... also from the link I posted:

              "Finally, penalties collected from individuals who do not have health insurance are projected to increase because the number of individuals who will remain uninsured is now estimated to be higher than was estimated in March 2011."

              If that doesn't make you want to reject the Affordable Care Act, then you're just a glutton for punishment.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154075].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I have a problem with the mandate.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153676].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I have a problem with the mandate.
      Me too
      But then I have a problem with our whole healthcare system
      Starting with that crap they call food all the way to that crap they call medicine.
      Instead of fixing a problem they just figure out a way to make it worse. All the time protecting the interests of the food corporations, the pharmaceutical corporations, and the insurance corporations.
      Real healthcare reform would start with the food we eat, what we got is designed to make the corporations richer and has nothing to do with getting us healthy.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153848].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Me too
        But then I have a problem with our whole healthcare system
        Starting with that crap they call food all the way to that crap they call medicine.
        Instead of fixing a problem they just figure out a way to make it worse. All the time protecting the interests of the food corporations, the pharmaceutical corporations, and the insurance corporations.
        Real healthcare reform would start with the food we eat, what we got is designed to make the corporations richer and has nothing to do with getting us healthy.
        It's only because our representatives were bought and paid for by these corporations. It's amazing how many former CFO's, COO's, and CEO's move to elected positions and write some of these laws...

        I guess that makes us the Corporate States of America?
        Signature

        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155831].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I agree Thom.

    And medical? While my life has been saved for at least a few years longer with the transplant, it was almost four years ago where I posted the article about the Drs,I think it was in Boston, that developed and was testing a way of doing the transplant so that after 6 months after the operation they did not need to take the daily anti-rejections drugs that I have to take for the rest of my life or at least the life of the kidney. ( At a monthly expense of over $2K a month for just two of the drugs).
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153875].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    So, if you can't afford the health care plan you are going to be penalized?


    Since there are so many going bankrupt now due to excessive medical costs sounds ,once again, like business as usual. :rolleyes:
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6153925].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author akif
    i guess those law makers kids dont do such farm chores rite?
    Signature

    No Links

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154308].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    OMG, I laughed my ass off after I saw the source of that.
    Yes Sir, that little town of 2010 certainly has their finger on the pulse of America...
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154437].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I'm a union person and I was against the bailout.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154846].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author netmondon
    if kids stop working on their family farms, then they won't know how to do anything... then what will happen to the US agriculture industry? I guess it will be non-existent like everything else will be soon... And I guess our country will have to rely on other nations for imported food... My dad owns 3 farms and he started as a kid... And really the farmer's are the richest people because they own land not money... the government is setting our youth up for failure
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6154900].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by netmondon View Post

      if kids stop working on their family farms, then they won't know how to do anything... then what will happen to the US agriculture industry? I guess it will be non-existent like everything else will be soon... And I guess our country will have to rely on other nations for imported food... My dad owns 3 farms and he started as a kid... And really the farmer's are the richest people because they own land not money... the government is setting our youth up for failure
      It will complete the transition into a corporate industry.
      Corporations like Monsanto and Cargill are actively trying to close down the small family farms and creating large corporate farms that produce what they are told to, not what the consumer demands. Unless you buy organic and/or local there's about a half dozen corporations that control what you eat.Monsanto, Cargill, and Beef Products Inc (BPI) are probably the three biggest.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155018].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Did you read anything else besides the 1st post here? Kids were never going to be stopped from working on family farms. They weren't going to stopped from their "chores". That was just misinformation. Geesh.

      Originally Posted by netmondon View Post

      if kids stop working on their family farms, then they won't know how to do anything... then what will happen to the US agriculture industry?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155174].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Did you read anything else besides the 1st post here? Kids were never going to be stopped from working on family farms. They weren't going to stopped from their "chores". That was just misinformation. Geesh.
        Yes they would have - if not for the public outcry...

        Children | Farm Labor | Regulations | Withdrawal | The Daily Caller
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155478].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          Yes they would have - if not for the public outcry...

          Children | Farm Labor | Regulations | Withdrawal | The Daily Caller
          Come on Gary. Only certain jobs were going to be excluded such as working with tobacco, which is especially unhealthy for minors:

          The nicotine inhaled from smoking or absorbed from chewing tobacco is also rapidly absorbed through the skin when harvesting tobacco, leading to a condition called ‘green tobacco sickness’ (GTS). GTS has been reported to occur in 1-10% of US tobacco workers and younger workers are at higher risk, which means that the prevalence may be even higher in developing economies where children play a substantial role in harvesting and processing tobacco.

          Symptoms of GTS include weakness, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, abdominal cramps, breathing difficulty, abnormal temperature, pallor, diarrhoea, chills, fluctuations in blood pressure or heart rate, and increased perspiration and salivation
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155826].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Come on Gary. Only certain jobs were going to be excluded such as working with tobacco, which is especially unhealthy for minors:

            "Instead, the Departments of Labor and Agriculture will work with rural stakeholders - such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, the Future Farmers of America, and 4-H - to develop an educational program to reduce accidents to young workers and promote safer agricultural working practices."
            And in your view, this isn't enough, right?
            Signature

            The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

            Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156000].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

              And in your view, this isn't enough, right?
              Actually sounds good to me. Could they have done this in the first place? Sure. Is it a better aproach than how they tried? That's debatable imo. I'm in favor of protecting children. Check out the info below as to why.

              The abstract of a paper by the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, Dept. of Community Medicine:

              "Child labor is a major threat to the health of children in the United States. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that more than four million children are legally employed and that another one to two million are employed under illegal, often exploitative conditions. Across the United States, child labor accounts for 20,000 workers compensation claims, 200,000 injuries, thousands of cases of permanent disability, and more than 70 deaths each year. Agriculture and newspaper delivery are the two most hazardous areas of employment for children and adolescents. Poverty, massive immigration, and relaxation in enforcement of Federal child labor law are the three factors principally responsible for the last two decades' resurgence of child labor in the United States. Control of the hazards of child labor will require a combination of strategies including vigorous enforcement, education, and public health surveillance."
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156121].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                <snip> I'm in favor of protecting children. Check out the info below as to why.

                The abstract of a paper by the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, Dept. of Community Medicine:

                "<snip> Agriculture and newspaper delivery are the two most hazardous areas of employment for children and adolescents. <snip>"

                I love the framing here, the insinuation being Steve **isn't** in favor of protecting children. I highly doubt that's the case.

                I don't know about agriculture, but if newspaper delivery is one of the two most hazardous areas of employment for children, then there's really nothing to discuss. Generations of children have delivered papers and lived to tell about it. I, myself, had a route for five years and I still have all my fingers and toes. Don't get me wrong, there was the occasional paper cut or stepping in a hole, but I lived to see another day.
                Signature

                Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156208].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Dan, that's a stretch. I was actually agreeing with Steve that the second option approach sounds good to me, but couldn't say if it was better than what was originally proposed. Either one, if they are effective in protecting kids is fine by me because protecting kids is what is important. I think it's clear I wasn't inferring Steve doesn't care about children. :/

                  Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                  I love the framing here, the insinuation being Steve **isn't** in favor of protecting children. I highly doubt that's the case.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156261].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Dan, that's a stretch. I was actually agreeing with Steve that the second option approach sounds good to me, but couldn't say if it was better than what was originally proposed. Either one, if they are effective in protecting kids is fine by me because protecting kids is what is important. I think it's clear I wasn't inferring Steve doesn't care about children. :/
                    It doesn't seem that way to me when you state: "Sure. Is it a better aproach than how they tried? That's debatable imo. I'm in favor of protecting children. Check out the info below as to why."

                    You state it's debatable that's Steve's option is a better approach. Nothing wrong with this part. However, after partially refuting Steve's opinion, you state you're in favor of protecting children and you provide data to support why you're in favor of protecting children. If you weren't framing that Steve was not in favor of protecting children, there's no need for your statement or data. What point would either serve considering you both would be in agreement?

                    Your comment to my response is a little more straight forward, although expands on your original comment. We'll disagree that your original comment made it clear that you weren't inferring Steve doesn't care about children.

                    I'm not trying to get into a debate about semantics here. My interpretation of your comment led me down this path. I've been wrong before. My wife reminds me of the fact nearly every day.

                    I'm not even sure why I jumped in here. I do my best to stick with fart jokes and flip remarks in nonsensical threads. I strayed in here and had flashbacks of my early twenties...
                    Signature

                    Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156323].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Actually sounds good to me. Could they have done this in the first place? Sure. Is it a better aproach than how they tried? That's debatable imo. I'm in favor of protecting children. Check out the info below as to why.

                The abstract of a paper by the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, Dept. of Community Medicine:

                "Child labor is a major threat to the health of children in the United States. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that more than four million children are legally employed and that another one to two million are employed under illegal, often exploitative conditions. Across the United States, child labor accounts for 20,000 workers compensation claims, 200,000 injuries, thousands of cases of permanent disability, and more than 70 deaths each year. Agriculture and newspaper delivery are the two most hazardous areas of employment for children and adolescents. Poverty, massive immigration, and relaxation in enforcement of Federal child labor law are the three factors principally responsible for the last two decades' resurgence of child labor in the United States. Control of the hazards of child labor will require a combination of strategies including vigorous enforcement, education, and public health surveillance."
                The death of any child is a tragedy. This is spoken as a parent.

                The objective of the authors of the paper is clear: more rules and regulations - enforcement, surveillance.

                "Child labor is a major threat.."? Actually, it isn't. Childdeathreview.org lists 53,287 deaths in the U.S. in 2007 of children 14 or under. National Child Mortality Data

                From the above, child labor is a minor threat.

                For instance, the National Cancer Institute said that over 1500 children died in 2007 from cancers. Childhood Cancers - National Cancer Institute

                SafeKids.org tabulated 134 deaths of children under 14 from accidental poisoning. http://www.safekids.org/assets/docs/...eet-poison.pdf

                Protecting children is a noble cause, but some pragmatism is also called for. There simply isn't a way to protect children from everything that might harm them, nor is it, I believe, desirable. Children need to know that life isn't safe. They need to learn, sometimes the hard way, that doing stupid things can lead to pain.
                Signature

                The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156574].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post


                  Protecting children is a noble cause, but some pragmatism is also called for. There simply isn't a way to protect children from everything that might harm them, nor is it, I believe, desirable. Children need to know that life isn't safe. They need to learn, sometimes the hard way, that doing stupid things can lead to pain.
                  I agree, we can't protect kids from everything. However, shouldn't we do what we can to protect them in sensible ways? Cancer is a hard thing to protect our kids from. Making some simple rules to follow about jobs that can be dangerous seems to me to be simple to accomplish. At least that is what I thought.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156661].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    I agree, we can't protect kids from everything. However, shouldn't we do what we can to protect them is sensible ways? Cancer is a hard thing to protect our kids from. Making some simple rules to follow about jobs that can be dangerous seems to me to be simple to accomplish. At least that is what I thought.
                    Tim, any job can be dangerous. How many teens get treated for burns from the fat fryers in a hamburger joint?

                    Agriculture is a dangerous business. Every part of it. A childhood friend of mine got trampled by a cow he was feeding. Another slipped while walking down a hill and rolled into a barbed wire fence.

                    Just because something sounds sensible doesn't mean it's practical or desirable.
                    Signature

                    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156773].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                      Tim, any job can be dangerous. How many teens get treated for burns from the fat fryers in a hamburger joint?

                      Agriculture is a dangerous business. Every part of it. A childhood friend of mine got trampled by a cow he was feeding. Another slipped while walking down a hill and rolled into a barbed wire fence.

                      Just because something sounds sensible doesn't mean it's practical or desirable.
                      RIGHT! Have you seen some of those "jackass" films? Some people INTENTIONALLY use things WRONG! Like haystacks, pitchforks, planks, bricks, tractors. That ONLY 70 people die a year is VERY low, considering! Maybe we should get rid of EVERYTHING that is harmful.

                      gas, alcohol, cleaners, sponges, thread, rope, electricity, water, pipe, nails, etc..........

                      SERIOUSLY!

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6157722].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author KimW
                      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                      Tim, any job can be dangerous. How many teens get treated for burns from the fat fryers in a hamburger joint?

                      Agriculture is a dangerous business. Every part of it. A childhood friend of mine got trampled by a cow he was feeding. Another slipped while walking down a hill and rolled into a barbed wire fence.

                      Just because something sounds sensible doesn't mean it's practical or desirable.
                      I got bitten by horses, my younger sister got her foot stepped on by a horse and had her toe broken. Accidents happen,its a part of life.

                      My brother and I also participated in the birthing of a foal. Probably not one of the highlights of my life,but certainly an eye opening learning experience.
                      Signature

                      Read A Post.
                      Subscribe to a Newsletter
                      KimWinfrey.Com

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158069].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author KimW
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    I agree, we can't protect kids from everything. However, shouldn't we do what we can to protect them in sensible ways? Cancer is a hard thing to protect our kids from. Making some simple rules to follow about jobs that can be dangerous seems to me to be simple to accomplish. At least that is what I thought.
                    Tim,
                    We already have laws in place to protect kids from that. and the organizations are called CPS in a lot of places, aka Child Protection Services.
                    We don't need new laws. What we need is to get rid of 90% of the BS laws we already have,and whether you agree, 90% ARE BS laws.
                    Signature

                    Read A Post.
                    Subscribe to a Newsletter
                    KimWinfrey.Com

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158056].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
                      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                      Tim,
                      We already have laws in place to protect kids from that. and the organizations are called CPS in a lot of places, aka Child Protection Services.
                      We don't need new laws. What we need is to get rid of 90% of the BS laws we already have,and whether you agree, 90% ARE BS laws.
                      Most thought up by folks who sit on their a** at our expense and have nothing better to do than attempt to justify their existence in society...:rolleyes:
                      Signature
                      Professional Googler
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158081].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I have read posts by people that say NOT that my predictions, that I made here earlier about the "hcp plan", will come to pass, etc... NOPE! They said that they ARE happening NOW, and that THEY have been affected. One said he couldn't get a drug because his doctor needed approval first and that the approval wouldn't be granted because he was 69. Another spoke of how she was put on medicaid and only two obstetricians, in the area, would accept it, and one was a pervert and the other was careless. She had to go to the ER to be diagnosed with septicemia! Oh well, I could say more, but will leave it at that.

    When the cost of being a doctor skyrockets(inflation, low income, etc...), and nurses are PAID to become doctors(even if they continue to act as nurses, in the HCP), and real income drops(inflation), and the number of patients INCREASES(because of the baby boomers), and the number of patients INCREASES(baby boomers), do you REALLY think it will be better?

    At least MA had cost CUTTING measures!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155741].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Steve,
    I'm lost,what is MA?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155769].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Steve,
      I'm lost,what is MA?
      Massachusetts.

      I think he's referring to THEIR health care plan...
      Signature
      Professional Googler
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155806].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

        Massachusetts.

        I think he's referring to THEIR health care plan...
        YEP! With greater insurance options, no real cost raises, or policy cuts, a generic drug mandate, and mandating that various companies offer health insurance, it lowered costs, increased competition, and increased coverage. Of course companies DID have problems, etc... but that happens no matter what.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155838].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Excellent endorsement for what some call a government takeover of health care in Massachusetts.

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          YEP! With greater insurance options, no real cost raises, or policy cuts, a generic drug mandate, and mandating that various companies offer health insurance, it lowered costs, increased competition, and increased coverage. Of course companies DID have problems, etc... but that happens no matter what.

          Steve
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156168].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Ah, ok,thanks Dave.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6155813].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    Speaking of government health care, is this a small glimpse of the future?

    No treatment for smokers or the obese: Doctors back measures to deny procedures for those with unhealthier lifestyles | Mail Online

    Excerpt from the article:

    Members of the networking website doctors.net.uk were asked 'Should the NHS be allowed to refuse non-emergency treatments to patients unless they lose weight or stop smoking?'


    And although the poll was optional 593 of the 1,096 doctors who participated answered yes.


    It is believed that some procedures are less likely to work on those with unhealthier lifestyles and medics say they should not use their already limited resources for such work.


    In some parts of England smokers and the obese are already being rejected IVF treatment as well as hip and knee replacements by private clinics but patient groups have reacted angrily to calls for the NHS to follow suit, saying it denies them their basic human rights.


    Speaking to The Observer Dr. Tim Ringrose, doctors.net.uk's chief executive, said the shift in attitudes is a result of the need to make huge cut backs.
    Interesting...
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156290].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money."

    -Margaret Thatcher
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6156301].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    One thing's for sure, you'll probably never find a farm owner that thinks we need more Government regulations. They're about to regulate child raising right out of existence.

    They've already effectively done that in the educational environment. There's basically no way to discipline a child during the 6 to 8 hours he/she is involved in our public educational system. All forms of effective disciplinary action have been regulated out of existence, which is why we are last in education among the industrialized nations. And why we have so many idiots "occupying" our nation.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158267].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      One thing's for sure, you'll probably never find a farm owner that thinks we need more Government regulations. They're about to regulate child raising right out of existence.

      They've already effectively done that in the educational environment. There's basically no way to discipline a child during the 6 to 8 hours he/she is involved in our public educational system. All forms of effective disciplinary action have been regulated out of existence, which is why we are last in education among the industrialized nations. And why we have so many idiots "occupying" our nation.
      Gary,
      I' don't have any Thanks,but if I did,you'd get one.

      But remember,to these people (most of them unmarried with no children) who think disciplining a child is child abuse, need some real lessons in life.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158312].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      They've already effectively done that in the educational environment. There's basically no way to discipline a child during the 6 to 8 hours he/she is involved in our public educational system. All forms of effective disciplinary action have been regulated out of existence, which is why we are last in education among the industrialized nations. And why we have so many idiots "occupying" our nation.
      Actually they've been "regulated out of existence" in the countries that rank at the top as well.

      So, that isn't the reason your country is at the bottom.
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172346].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        Actually they've been "regulated out of existence" in the countries that rank at the top as well.

        So, that isn't the reason your country is at the bottom.
        NOPE! He obviously meant adults as well as kids! You see, in the US a lot of "teachers" are SPOILED BRATS!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172743].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          NOPE! He obviously meant adults as well as kids! You see, in the US a lot of "teachers" are SPOILED BRATS! Steve
          I don't think that's what he meant at all, but anyway.

          Interestingly, in the top ranking countries teaching is seen as a worthy profession, as vital as law, medicine, etc. The teachers are extremely qualified, and very well paid.
          Signature
          Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
          So that blind people can hate them as well.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172896].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Just wondering, how would you know this? I don't think you have any kids and I'm guessing you haven't been a student in maybe three decades, so what are you basing your theory that a lot of teachers are spoiled brats? A few news items about bad teachers? A study on teachers being spoiled brats?? :/

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          NOPE! He obviously meant adults as well as kids! You see, in the US a lot of "teachers" are SPOILED BRATS!

          Steve
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6178923].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Just wondering, how would you know this? I don't think you have any kids and I'm guessing you haven't been a student in maybe three decades, so what are you basing your theory that a lot of teachers are spoiled brats? A few news items about bad teachers? A study on teachers being spoiled brats?? :/
            Well, Let's see! I remember how teachers were, have heard a LOT of teachers speak, seen them go on strike, have students work for them, etc... Who needs kids to see ANY of that? And the LSM HAS covered THAT, so you can't clame partisan bias, etc... A FEW? Try DOZENS! And it runs the gambit! Cheating in every way, Getting diploma mill diplomas, striking, propaganda in every way, etc...

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6179097].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              Well, Let's see!

              I remember how teachers were,
              yes, that was one of my points. It was a long time ago. You were a kid. You thought teachers were spoiled brats when you were a kid? haha

              have heard a LOT of teachers speak,
              Where? On tv? Have you interacted with them in person at all? Besides 30 years ago?

              seen them go on strike,
              haha. How does this even relate to them being what you call "spoiled brats? So, anyone going on strike is a spoiled brat? :/

              have students work for them, etc...
              That doesn't even make sense. Huh? You lost me there.

              Who needs kids to see ANY of that? And the
              LSM
              HAS covered THAT, so you can't clame partisan bias, etc...
              Oh lordy! You are using a Sarah Palin term. Haha.

              A FEW? Try DOZENS!
              Wow!! Dozens!!?? In your 30 plus years as an adult!!?? Amazing!!?? No wonder you say "a lot"!! That is a BIG number Steve!
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6179173].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                yes, that was one of my points. It was a long time ago. You were a kid. You thought teachers were spoiled brats when you were a kid? haha
                YEP! Not seeming to know a subject, not wanting to teach, etc...

                Where? On tv? Have you interacted with them in person at all? Besides 30 years ago
                I have ALSO spoken with parents, spoken with teachers, seen reports all over the place. radio, tv, talk shows, government, etc....

                haha. How does this even relate to them being what you call "spoiled brats? So, anyone going on strike is a spoiled brat? :/
                Often, YEAH! But it is WHAT they went on strike for.


                That doesn't even make sense. Huh? You lost me there.
                YEP, like holding picket signs, doing campaigns, etc... It is child/slave labor!

                Oh lordy! You are using a Sarah Palin term. Haha.
                WHAT? LSM? HEY, if the shoe FITS, and it DOES!

                Wow!! Dozens!!?? In your 30 plus years as an adult!!?? Amazing!!?? No wonder you say "a lot"!! That is a BIG number Steve!
                For STRIKES? YEP!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6181173].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        Actually they've been "regulated out of existence" in the countries that rank at the top as well.

        So, that isn't the reason your country is at the bottom.
        I'm not merely talking about corporal punishment (although Korea is ranked at the very top of the educational charts and they still allow corporal punishment) - but what I'm talking about is ANY form of discipline, including a harsh talking to.

        Our country has become so litigious, that we can't even hardly talk to our children without being sued by someone.

        But it is true that our teachers are under valued and under qualified, but I think it's mostly the fault of unions and a Teacher tenure that prevents unqualified teachers from being dismissed. We have hoards of unqualified teachers, but because of union rules, we can't get rid of them. So instead we pay them full salaries to sit in a classroom and babysit our children.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6174140].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      They've already effectively done that in the educational environment. There's basically no way to discipline a child during the 6 to 8 hours he/she is involved in our public educational system. All forms of effective disciplinary action have been regulated out of existence, which is why we are last in education among the industrialized nations. And why we have so many idiots "occupying" our nation.
      I remember being a brat when I first started school and one day got a gentle but firm whack over the head from the school principle who was holding a wound up newspaper followed by a very stern look, while he was talking to the class.

      Never misbehaved during class again

      -Chris
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6174130].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I can't imagine what it is like to be a kid now days. You can't go out and play by yourself at all. 24/7 surveillance. Schools are crazy, wanting to drug kids for anything and everything, teaching them WHAT to think instead of HOW to think. You get caught with a jack knife and you go to the juvie for it, even if whittling is your hobby. And now you can't do anything on a farm because you might just hurt yourself.

    When I was 5 I used to grab a salt shaker and jack knife and spend my day in the fields and woods either alone or with the neighbor kids. The salt shaker was for all the veggies that were growing that we'd eat. All natural food that the gov never even thought about controlling. We would drink raw milk from the farmer next door. We'd saddle the horses down the street at the vets and take off riding for hours. If we were brats at school nobody thought of drugging us, but parents sometimes thought of giving us spankings for it.

    This world has gone completely 100% crazy -- it does that in any country that the government takes hold of people's privacy and their way of life. REMEMBER the day the wall came down (1989) - did you ever read what those people had to say about what their life was like behind the curtain? Does ANYONE actually believe that having gov controlling your life makes it better? Who gives a **** if you live to be 100 if all you are allowed to do is sit at home and watch tv and play on a computer (even that will be controlled soon).

    WE have MONSANTO - personal care items and cleaners with poisons that most countries have banned because they are poisonous, cancer therapies that work, but are banned because of dollars. We have warehouses and factories that treat workers so badly that they kill them. We have people living in the streets and starving. We have people so drugged that they aren't even able to think straight. We are given vaccines that are NOT safety tested and are causing major problems. We have a DHS that takes kids away from parents just because parents refuse to drug them or want to discipline them (and I'm not talking abuse). The list can go on forever......and the list is getting longer as gov takes over more of our lives........yet some people think more legislation is a great idea. How the hell did our people ever get to the point that we need a gov to survive? How did we build this country without continual oversight -- and why is it only falling apart when gov has decided that we are their slaves and they can do anything they want to us?

    Think fast. We don't have much time.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160735].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    WOW kim, I guess I used up my thanks this morning. 8-( I would would have thanked you.

    Frankly I liked the world earlier. People seemed nicer, prices were lower, etc... There were fewer laws, and people seemed to respect them. And it was SAFER! Also, there were fewer wars, and people respected the US.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161993].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Steve, I had some left so I thanked YOU!

    I agree, the world was a better place, I can't remember if it was here or on FB but someone mentioned being a Scout in the younger days (maybe you?) ,But I still try to live by the values I was taught in Scouting.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6162111].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Steve, I had some left so I thanked YOU!

      I agree, the world was a better place, I can't remember if it was here or on FB but someone mentioned being a Scout in the younger days (maybe you?) ,But I still try to live by the values I was taught in Scouting.
      I was never a scout. I might have liked that though. I HAVE camped before, etc...

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6162128].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        I was never a scout. I might have liked that though. I HAVE camped before, etc...

        Steve
        This day and age, I am SO glad you added that last sentence
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6162540].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          OK, now that one is over my head apparently. :/ Huh?

          Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

          This day and age, I am SO glad you added that last sentence
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6163060].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Tim - You can agree with someone's position but not their attitude. Belligerence seldom ends well.

            The idea that you can post rants on a public forum and dictate who is allowed to answer you - is a bit ridiculous. I think most agree on that one.

            kay
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
            what it is instead of what you think it should be.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6163406].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              I'll give that a big "huh?" also. What are you talking about darling? :/


              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              Tim - You can agree with someone's position but not their attitude. Belligerence seldom ends well.

              The idea that you can post rants on a public forum and dictate who is allowed to answer you - is a bit ridiculous. I think most agree on that one.

              kay
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6163500].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                I'll give that a big "huh?" also. What are you talking about darling? :/

                Tim,
                Obviously TL's continued posts about me not responding to his posts.
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6165684].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  I figured that out after I posted. I thought Kay was referring to Steve's post about Steve camping which had me confused.


                  Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                  Tim,
                  Obviously TL's continued posts about me not responding to his posts.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6165931].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    I figured that out after I posted. I thought Kay was referring to Steve's post about Steve camping which had me confused.
                    Camping is supposed to be simple. Somehow, I just can't see Steve going camping...
                    Signature
                    Professional Googler
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6165957].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                      Sorry, Tim, didn't mean to be obtuse - one of my pet peeves is rudeness so I was responding to TL. I know you share some of TL's beliefs - but you don't have the "attitude altitude" he's been displaying recently.

                      Imagining Steve - and camping. It's a good giggle:p That would be one intricately planned campsite.
                      Signature
                      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                      ***
                      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6166550].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            OK, now that one is over my head apparently. :/ Huh?
            Well - given Steve's apparent age, I'm happy that he has legitimate reasons for being involved with Scouting

            Nevermind, bad joke...
            Signature

            The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

            Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6163739].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

              Well - given Steve's apparent age, I'm happy that he has legitimate reasons for being involved with Scouting

              Nevermind, bad joke...
              I was wondering myself about what you meant. Now that I hear your explanation, WOW! I said "might have"! That implies that I am no longer thinkng of it as a possible consideration. ALSO, I would think of scouting ONLY to do what it has TRADITIONALLY been for.

              I would think that, being male, you would try to NOT go where you apparently ARE going. That begs the question of why you were thinking about that.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6165051].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                I was wondering myself about what you meant. Now that I hear your explanation, WOW! I said "might have"! That implies that I am no longer thinkng of it as a possible consideration. ALSO, I would think of scouting ONLY to do what it has TRADITIONALLY been for.

                I would think that, being male, you would try to NOT go where you apparently ARE going. That begs the question of why you were thinking about that.

                Steve
                It's too early to be that serious...
                Signature
                Professional Googler
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6165110].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                I was wondering myself about what you meant. Now that I hear your explanation, WOW! I said "might have"! That implies that I am no longer thinkng of it as a possible consideration. ALSO, I would think of scouting ONLY to do what it has TRADITIONALLY been for.

                I would think that, being male, you would try to NOT go where you apparently ARE going. That begs the question of why you were thinking about that.

                Steve
                It was a product of what was on a newsfeed that I had been looking at moments before combined with a past incident that I was personally on the periphery of.

                As happens frequently, the written comment did not come across the way a spoken one would have. I mean no insult, sorry.
                Signature

                The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6167331].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    So the following is actually O.T., but maybe not totally since we've been bouncing all over the board...

    Saw these quotes today, thought they were particularly relevant:


    "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." --British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

    "A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." --economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6167407].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

      So the following is actually O.T., but maybe not totally since we've been bouncing all over the board...

      Saw these quotes today, thought they were particularly relevant:


      "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." --British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

      "A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."[ --economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
      Good one Steve! And my mind and heart tell me...it is so.
      Signature
      Professional Googler
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6167452].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6169720].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    What's really sick is that I've been looking back over everything that's been legislated lately, everything we've been told, everything done --- and I can't remember one instance - not ONE - that we were told the truth beforehand. It sometimes slipped out, but I never heard the truth -- until I got on C-span. You hear a lot on there as they talk amongst themselves that never even comes near the public via any other medium.

    I'm so sick of hearing "all politicians lie" as if it makes it okay -- I'm so sick of closed door decisions about OUR lives. It's past time we started just kicking their butts to the curb -- not voting them out so they still get their cushy pensions and perks - but kicking them out on the street where their greed and corruption is putting everyone else.

    It's also half past time to force them to tell us WHO the hell it is they are working for - it's very obvious it isn't us.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6171402].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Heysal,

    You are right. Federal workers are SUPPOSED to have like 5 priorities!

    1. COUNTRY.
    2. CONSTITUTION. This includes citizens, sovereignty, etc....
    3. STATE.
    4. THEIR JOB.
    5. THEN pet projects.

    So if the country or the state doesn't have the money for whatever, they have to find the money, or forget about the project. If their job is on the line, OH WELL! HEY, if a soldier is on the front line, they don't retreat because their duty is NOT to! BESIDES, if they did, the enemy may get stronger, and kill them LATER! LIKEWISE, a congressman should NOT fund a project that they can't afford! It is their duty NOT to and, if they did, it may end up becoming a toll road, or not be maintained, or people may not have the money to use it, etc....

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6172838].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I used to say our teachers were underpaid and I am sure a lot were and still are,but seeing the type that have been in the news the past few years I am not so concerned about their pay as I am their mental capacity.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6173175].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I used to say our teachers were underpaid and I am sure a lot were and still are,but seeing the type that have been in the news the past few years I am not so concerned about their pay as I am their mental capacity.
      That would mean they're underqualified. This isn't the case in (particularly) the Scandinavian countries.
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6173393].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        That would mean they're underqualified. This isn't the case in (particularly) the Scandinavian countries.
        The problem is our dept of education.
        As with everything else when the feds. decide that they will run things, they get it all wrong.
        First they decided that everyone should have a college education so they designed the courses to meet that goal. Doesn't matter that not everyone wants to go to college.
        Doesn't matter that not all jobs require a college education.
        Then they came up with this no child left behind crap.
        The idea there is if x% don't pass the school district doesn't get their federal aid.
        So that led to teachers and principals helping students cheat and even changing their test scores so they wouldn't lose out on their money.
        Those are just two of the problems with our education system.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6173775].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          The problem is our dept of education.
          As with everything else when the feds. decide that they will run things, they get it all wrong.
          First they decided that everyone should have a college education so they designed the courses to meet that goal. Doesn't matter that not everyone wants to go to college.
          Doesn't matter that not all jobs require a college education.
          Then they came up with this no child left behind crap.
          The idea there is if x% don't pass the school district doesn't get their federal aid.
          So that led to teachers and principals helping students cheat and even changing their test scores so they wouldn't lose out on their money.
          Those are just two of the problems with our education system.
          You forgot about how the unions INSIST on HIGH pay and LOTS of time off, tenure, etc.... And NO competency tests! SERIOUSLY, when competency tests, or merit pay are discussed, the teachers GO ON STRIKE! They have ALSO gone to diploma mills(places that give you diplomas and maybe transcripts, etc... with NO evidence of any knowledge), to gt higher pay! ALSO, there is the cheating on tests, and grade inflation.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6177699].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        That would mean they're underqualified. This isn't the case in (particularly) the Scandinavian countries.
        I was too subtle.
        I was actually referring to the number of teachers,both male and female have been caught screwing around with their students.
        And also the number of teachers that are doing things such as the recent abuse of the autistic child that I posted about a week or two ago.

        But you are also right, a lot are underqualified too.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6173791].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        That would mean they're underqualified. This isn't the case in (particularly) the Scandinavian countries.
        That is CLEARLY not true. MAN could I give examples! Interestingly, they have to do with Denmark and Norway! SORRY! I WOULD say more, but some might be deemed political.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6177671].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    My sister was a teacher's aid for awhile before she got her teaching certificate. There was a little black boy that was disrupting class real badly so she put him in the corner -- and got fired for it. It would have been okay if the kid was white because nobody could have sued for discrimination. That kid's parents might have gotten over - but that kid is going to suffer in the long run.

    We're supposed to have teachers that even CARE about their jobs at that point? Give me a break.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6176281].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      My sister was a teacher's aid for awhile before she got her teaching certificate. There was a little black boy that was disrupting class real badly so she put him in the corner -- and got fired for it. It would have been okay if the kid was white because nobody could have sued for discrimination. That kid's parents might have gotten over - but that kid is going to suffer in the long run.

      We're supposed to have teachers that even CARE about their jobs at that point? Give me a break.
      The SAD part is that THAT type of thinking lowers the quality of their education, and means that the "integration" makes the "integration" WORTHLESS! Of course, that means everyone ELSE suffers ALSO!

      Nobody is now really denied access. Minorities certainly aren't. If minorities were REALLY interested in their communities, and capable, they could go back to ther neighborhoods and TEACH! The bad schools could become the BEST! We could get rid of integration, and there would be less racial conflict, and probably less racism.

      Doesn't the fact that such success is so rare say something about the theories? HECK! With the garbage that has happened elsewhere, and the fact that this is SO rare, one wonders if IT isn't fake! ARE stories like stand and deliver: Stand and Deliver (1988) - IMDb REALLY true? How can we ever tell?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6177758].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    I still remember the day a fellow classmate said something very off-color to our 5th grade teacher. After her phone call to the vice-principal (Chief Enforcer of the Code), he was removed from the classroom under the attentive eye of 30 fellow 5th graders.

    When he was returned 15 or 20 minutes later, with the swollen, puffy, red eyes indicative of uncontrollable bouts of laughter (cough cough), the rest of us KNEW that you NEVER EVER talk to the teacher like that again.

    40 years ago, and I still remember the kid's name, obviously the incident left a scar on my psyche.

    Didn't affect my ongoing behavior, though
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6177677].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    One of the problems is what was once a minority no longer are.
    Steve, as far as stand and deliver, I think there is plenty of proof the basic story is true,but as in any movie they have "gussied" it up to make it more palatable to the viewing audience. In other words,to sell tickets.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6177897].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      One of the problems is what was once a minority no longer are.
      You have that right. Muslims, world wide, EASILY outnumber christians. MOST nations are NOT run by whites. MANY monarchies are NOT run by males. And there ARE a LOT of jewish people. Remove all the "minorities" from the number, and whites, especially males, are a VERY small minority. Interesting!

      SO many now talk about middle/upper class americans like the they spoke about jewish people prior to KrystalNacht, in WWII Germany. Little things like the various riots, etc... and "occupy..." are very much like krystalnacht. They feel the same way about the victims, and give the same justification.

      Sorry, but it is true.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6178357].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Sorry, but you are delusional.

        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post


        SO many now talk about middle/upper class americans like the they spoke about jewish people prior to KrystalNacht, in WWII Germany. Little things like the various riots, etc... and "occupy..." are very much like krystalnacht. They feel the same way about the victims, and give the same justification.

        Sorry, but it is true.

        Steve
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6179007].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          THAT type of thinking lowers the quality
          ...of everything.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6179119].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I don't know German so I had to make sure KrystalNacht referred to the Night of Broken Glass> I thought that was was you were talking about but had to make sure.

    Germany was in the midst of a financial crisis then,just as we are now and the middle class is disappearing,which is why we have some of the conditions you just stated.

    A far as minorities and such, it has been reported that within the next 20 years the USA population will have a structure completely different that what was had in the previous history of the country.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6178522].message }}

Trending Topics