Posted on 10/23/2006 5:03:34 PM PDT by JTN
I might entertain a debate on the issue in the proper context. It seems rather OT on this thread.
They might be in favor of it based on arguments that department B is unnecessary.
I seriously doubt they'd support arguments of eliminating department B on grounds that it's claimed Constitutional authority is flawed if department A claims authority on the same basis.
Necessary. Unnecessary. Whatever. If department B goes, there's more money for department A.
"I seriously doubt they'd support arguments of eliminating department B on grounds that it's claimed Constitutional authority is flawed if department A claims authority on the same basis."
I'm in favor of reducing or eliminating departments even if they're constitutionally sound. Aren't you?
The bottom line is that government employees may favor a reduction in government and/or a reduction in government spending, as long as it's not their department.
Generally, yes. Again, I think that whole discussion may be a OT on this particular thread, and would rather not open a door to having it hijacked to peripheral issues.
If they may, then they also may not, so the fact that they may is not the bottom line.
Then you have no problem changing your statement to, "I think (some) people who work for the federal government (may) have a conflict of interest when it comes to determining the appropriate limits of the power of the federal government"?
Not based on any arguments you've submitted. "Appropriate limits of the power of the federal government" is not the same as "appropriate distribution of federal tax money". I'm not going to change my opinion about one based on arguments about the other.
The initiatives are consistent with the spread of all manner of vice and crime i.e. perversion, adultery, perjury, greed, the giving and acceptance of bribes, treason, sedition etc. etc. No suprise if they pass.
You forgot gluttony.
No longer does one who enjoys the sin of "gambling" have to board a jet & fly to sin city, not when a little piece of sin city's in their own back yard.
Decriminalization -- I sincerely believe -- will be Nevada's only chance to continue attracting the hordes seeking to do all the things they cannot do anywhere else.
...time'll tell.
"Decriminalization' [which is just a return to the pre-prohibitional freedoms of our 19th century Republic] -- will be Americas answer to the big brother style 'Democracy' being practiced now by both political parties.. -- I sincerely believe.
Right on! And if that doesn't do it, I say they should legalize heroin and cocaine.
I mean, c'mon. We have a tourism industry at stake here!
Sounds like you agree with my prediction the deriection NV pols will take if they [ever] get desperate enough, bob.
"I mean, c'mon. We have a tourism industry at stake here!"
Yea.
...they do. ;^)
Yea.
That's what it is, in reality and "legally", alright.
So what.
It'd happen in the one *spot* in the entire nation where antisocial behavior's already expected, the "anything goes" mentality necessary to entertain a legalization/decrim effort abounds and there wouldn't be a lot WA could do, would there.
LV Jaycees like to say, "What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas." & they'd sure have a splendid opportunity to prove it if their backs were against the way?
If legalizing/decrim'g certain dope was the difference between LV et al continuing to prosper, or, turning into a ghost town.
Wanna guess what direction the Nevada taxpayer will direct their politicians to go -- all of 'em -- & to hell with yours or anyone else's legal and/or moral argument(s).
"...-- will be Americas answer to the big brother style 'Democracy' being practiced now by both political parties."
We Yanks are *creative*, huh.
Always been weird like that here in the good ol' USA trying to live with her dichotomies, paradoxes & contradictions.
Ain't it great.
Americans do what they want to do.
When American's properly motivated get outa the way *&* to hell with the Constitution, BoRs or anything else impeding their pursuit of a buck. {~now there's a surprise}
Besides, they got the guns & *want* the money, Professor. :o)
"I sincerely believe."
HA!!
Right.
tpaine on one side & robertpaulsen on the other.
Jesus, is it a full moon or what.
Why one'd think given how fast the two never fail to show up on these threads they're one in the same.
...God forbid.
So, you're OK with living in an enclave of drunkards, as long as they don't use pot, or do you favor a return to Prohibition like we had in the past?
The journalist's death was not caused by the smoking of marijuana. It was because somebody was "driving under the influence of..."
Different crime, different law.
"Decriminalization' [which is just a return to the pre-prohibitional freedoms of our 19th century Republic] -- will be Americas answer to the big brother style 'Democracy' being practiced now by both political parties.. -- I sincerely believe.
"I sincerely believe." HA!!
Right.
tpaine on one side & 'he who must not be named' on the other.
Jesus, is it a full moon or what.
Why one'd think given how fast the two never fail to show up on these threads they're one in the same.
...God forbid.
I work for our Constitutional freedoms, not against them, -- so I gotta be fast..
Unfortunately, I'm loosing a lot of races these days to FR's young whippersnapper prohibitionists. -- It's hell to get old.
Speaking of 'sides' to take.
Goodbye Justice, Hello Happiness
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732867/posts
The Puritans, as best I can tell, were users of wine, beer and distilled spirits. Wish folks could stop knocking those Puritans with a zillion petty slanders that are all absent of any real history.
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.