Posted on 11/11/2012 5:29:55 PM PST by Renfield
Well, duh. You just listed three. Aren't those the offenses that almost everyone would agree are wrong? In fact, I listed them, too. See we can agree on what is a crime!
Stupid question, and I never advocated not having laws against those offenses. I haven't advocated anarchy, just that 'the Government which governs best, governs least'. Now, for extra credit, which of the Founders said that?
Which of the so-called one size fits all federal edicts are you referring to?
You still haven't addressed this question; " Do you honestly believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., rates would diminish if there weren't laws against them"?
If people don't like them they can vote out the SOBs who wrote them and have the laws, etc. removed.
We can do that with our senators and congressmen also.
Vehicle laws? Which ones? The ones which say you can't drive a car without a catalytic converter on it if made after 1975 in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota?
Can you post the law to which you are referring? Why do you believe we have speed limits and reduced speed school zones?
What took you so long to come up with that response?
Government which governs best, governs least'.
It has been attributed to Adams, Paine, Jefferson, Thoreau and Emerson.
For extra credit which POTUS said this; "None of the four wars in my lifetime came about because we were too strong. It is weakness that invites adventurous adversaries to make mistaken judgments. America is the most peaceful, least warlike nation in modern history. We are not the cause of all the ills of the world. We're a patient and generous people. But for the sake of our freedom and that of others, we cannot permit our reserve to be confused with a lack of resolve."
STUPID, RHETORICAL, QUESTION There's all the answer that BS gets. We can do that with our senators and congressmen also.
The laws are imposed by the same people who you say will repeal them, or the regulations are promulgated at the behest of the selfsame Congress through legislation and their abdication of the legislative fine points to a regulatory (executive) agency.
At that point it is out of the Congress' hands. How many such regulations has the Congress repealed? (and don't even try to tell me that they were all perfect).
As for the chances of getting COngress to repeal it directly, how many one-termers are there in any given Congress?
Will they even bother?
It. Won't. Happen.
There is no precedent.
Can you post the law to which you are referring?
Yes. Right here $25,000 fine, which was three times the price of a nice pickup in 1975. Mechanics would not remove the damned things, nor could individuals, legally, even though they were a fire hazard on the prairie.
Why do you believe we have speed limits and reduced speed school zones?
"Or the ones which rationally attempt to limit the speeds at which drivers drive
in certain areas where you might get run over if you try to go that slow?"
found here, in the post you either did not read or did not comprehend. Rationally, as in "makes sense". That does not preclude mass civil disobedience, although that is normally on the open highway and not in school zones because no one wants to hit a kid. I actually drive slower there than many of the parents, because I know how kids get excited and don't pay attention.
Now, you didn't answer my question, either.
How about it?
Who said "The Government which governs best governs least."?
No such critter. Only stupid answers.
Now, you didn't answer my question, either. How about it? Who said "The Government which governs best governs least."?
Already answered. Can't you read?
We the people, elect the lawmakers. It is our responsibility/duty to elect those who will abide by the electorates wishes.
Yes. Right here $25,000 fine, which was three times the price of a nice pickup in 1975. Mechanics would not remove the damned things, nor could individuals, legally, even though they were a fire hazard on the prairie.
I bought a new 1976 Ford F-250 4x4 and a new 1986 Ford E-350 Pathfinder 4x4 van, neither of which had a catalytic converter. The van came stock with dual exhaust and the truck was converted to dual exhaust.
Ronald Reagan.
From many of his statements, directives and actions there are those that would accuse him of being a "globalist".
We the people, elect the lawmakers. It is our responsibility/duty to elect those who will abide by the electorates wishes.
As I said, our State sends a whopping three votes to DC. That's a whopping 1/2 of 1%. When the people on the coasts who have never seen a winter at -30F or colder decide the rest of us (north of the 48th parallel) don't need heat, we can't outvote them, even with the might of our entire Congressional delegation.
Read at the link. If they weren't so equipped, there was nothing to remove. If they had them from the factory (and weren't Canadian vehicles) removing them was a crime, and in areas which have EPA style vehicle emissions inspections, they would have had to be retrofitted to pass.
I am sure everyone in your area suffered interminably because they couldn't breathe the 'healthy' stink of catalyzed exhaust. No wonder we need laws. (that's sarcastic, in case you missed it).
A lot of vehicles, including the Chevrolet 1/2 ton I was driving had 'em in '75.
I actually think Reagan was consummate politician, a fine actor, and a good man who was Presidential in every aspect of the word.
That doesn't mean I agree with everything he did, but my views are colored by hindsight.
Same as Alaska.
When the people on the coasts who have never seen a winter at -30F or colder decide the rest of us (north of the 48th parallel) don't need heat, we can't outvote them, even with the might of our entire Congressional delegation.
Who decided you North Dakotans didn't need heat? When? I had good friends in the Minnewaukan area and they never mentioned it.
areas which have EPA style vehicle emissions inspections, they would have had to be retrofitted to pass.
I know Anchorage and Fairbanks were both federally mandated to have vehicle emissions testing because of air quality problems. Neither city as FAIK require them now because of advances in vehicle computerized fuel/air mixtures and unleaded fuels. I remember well the problems we had with the moisture absorbing oxygenated fuels
A lot of vehicles, including the Chevrolet 1/2 ton I was driving had 'em in '75.
There have been tremendous operating and mechanical improvements in vehicles since then. I do still own and operate a 78 Bronco and 79 F-250 plow truck.
I am sure everyone in your area suffered interminably because they couldn't breathe
Unfortunately for some in Anchorage and Fairbanks that was indeed a fact.
Who decided you North Dakotans didn't need heat? When? I had good friends in the Minnewaukan area and they never mentioned it.
What part of 'When the people...decide' did you miss? The phrase describes an event which has not yet taken place. It might not, it might.
Don't think it ever will? Read up on Stalin's treatment of the Ukranians. It can happen here, especially with the entitlement mentalities of those in power, and they'll pass a law so it's all nice and legal.
I know people here descended from some who survived that by literally walking out of there, and had a professor in college who walked out as a child during the October Revolution.
The administration is doing all it can to cripple our electrical generation capacity, and when the brownouts come, we're not a large enough voting bloc (and a 'red' state to boot!) to keep the lights on if Duh-1 decides to invoke an EO and send the killowatts we generate here elsewhere. No power to a furnace, and most people will be freezing (literally) in short order. Not everyone here works outside in the weather, and especially the folks in town, living in newer homes (without fireplaces) will be vulnerable.
That is one possibility, the other is the diversion of natural gas (a primary home heating fuel here). Either one would do the trick.
The Executive Orders are in place to seize and divert any and all resources in the event of an 'emergency', and these Cloward/Piven folks will create an emergency if they need to (they already are in terms of energy, it just isn't blatantly evident yet). If it happens, don't bother to look for the 'news' on CNN. It won't be there.
I have a lot of faith in our system as it was originally set up, but little faith in it as it is being twisted by the folks in office at present, except to do the wrong thing. The more power a government has to do the wrong thing, the bigger a mess it can make of things, and ultimately, it can destroy the very Nation it is supposed to safeguard. So the more that power is broken down into small units, (as the Founders intended), the less damage it can do. YMMV
I rarely look for news of any kind on television and I'm not paranoid.
What part of 'When the people...decide' did you miss? The phrase describes an event which has not yet taken place. It might not, it might.
The possibility of that happening is about the same as the possibility that it will snow gold dust this winter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.