TX LAWMAN wrote: oneskone

I disagree for no other reason than to fulfill the purpose of this page!

TX LAWMAN wrote: I'm cheating a bit. I work the night shift, so I pop in now and then during some down time at work.

onsekone wrote: I have to dissagree about rule 5. I don't know any other phenomenon that has affected to our culture and civilization more than religion.

onsekone wrote: I have to dissagree about rule 5. I don't know any other phenomenon that has affected to our culture and civilization more than religion.

TX LAWMAN wrote: I'm cheating a bit. I work the night shift, so I pop in now and then during some down time at work.

Dr Dave wrote:

TX LAWMAN wrote: I'm cheating a bit. I work the night shift, so I pop in now and then during some down time at work.

ie, a visit to the Donut shop right? Good bring me some.

Jacklpe wrote:

onsekone wrote: I have to dissagree about rule 5. I don't know any other phenomenon that has affected to our culture and civilization more than religion.

I agree. I won't put it off limits, rather I will leave it at "avoid" for now just for the obvious issues that can come up when discussing those things.

I was reading on the other thread about toll roads being privatized. That had happened here in the US too. The most recent example is the Indiana Turnpike. Their governor sold the rights to it for something like 100 years in return for a wad of cash that he spent on the rest of their highways.

I don't know what I think of this scenario. Obviously states are cash strapped right now and have to do something to keep things up, but selling off the citizens of the state's highways???

I haven't made my mind up on this one yet.

Anyone have any opinions or insight?

Jacklpe wrote: I knew you guys would break the rules, but human nature will naturally make you more cautious while you are in the process of breaking them.

btschuman wrote: You're correct in that private inefficiency effects the private provider, but its also an issue if the quality of their service provision has a bad impact on the public they are meant to serve. Example, a toll road owner whose maintenance is so badly done it is a hazard to private and commercial users. The issue is accountability. If the public is comfortable thinking that market forces will be enough to force proper responsibility, then go for it (indiana, in your example) if not, they better start thinking of other options, like your limited term contract, contracting out, etc. thats one of the attractions of contracting is, if government does its job, it can hold the providers accountable for providing some expected level of service.

And, its probably no surprise that attempts to privatize prisons have, for the most part, been limited to the low or medium level facilities. All the complexities of hard core lockups make it real hard for privatization efforts.

[DD]Big C wrote: Just to see some steam coming off people's ears-

Obama has signed things like NDAA into law, among other unconstitutional things. Bush signed the patriot act which violated the 6th amendment. Of course, almost all of congress, excluding one, voted for at least one of these.

I think its about time we bring the treason charges. There is more than enough evidence for convictions. The only question is who will try them? Congress is supposed to try the president in an impeachment, but I think that's a conflict of interests. It would have to be intelligent people who wont let opinions get in the way... The other question is what to do afterward. With the way the world has changed since 1776, no doubt we need an new or at least revised system.

I think the best thing to do would be to revert back to something like the articles of confederation, except the bill of rights are still there, along with maybe a few other amendments that have seen themselves necessary in the last few decades. The basic idea would be people have the right to do anything as long as it doesn't directly harm another person.

The states would decide their own government, essentially all 50 would have different governments, and if one became undesirable for a citizen, they could move freely.

Any thoughts?

[DD]Big C wrote: The basic idea would be people have the right to do anything as long as it doesn't directly harm another person.