Peasants: should government be small, voluntary, and private?

[Alaska Darin]

Hey, that is your problem you align yourself with dolts.

What the !@#$ are you talking about? This is a new low, even for you.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What the !@#$ are you talking about? This is a new low, even for you.

 

Seems Magox got the point. Now shut the !@#$ up and run around along.

[DrFishfinder]

Don't look at me, I voted for Tribalism.

Me too. I wonder who the other malcontent is?

 

Probably Mel Gibson.

[Alaska Darin]

Seems Magox got the point. Now shut the !@#$ up and run around along.

So you think that somehow lets you off the hook? Someone knows they're about to get major !@#$ing schooling and wants to run and hide. That's fine, Eric. It's pretty much what I expected.

[GG]

I don't mean to be cruel, but unless you're being sarcastic (forgive me if you are), this is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. Conner has more enlightening comments at times.

 

To suggest that everything the Federal government "pays for" is progress and wouldn't exist otherwise is foolish. The public school system you mentioned is primarily provided for at the state and local level, as are most reservoirs for drinking water and so forth.

 

Additionally, where do the Feds get the money for these projects? From taxing the citizens of the states. Your assertion that TVA was some great improvement to the listed states only tells me that you swallowed everything your history teacher told you without question like a good soldier.

 

This is the age old battle between the more populous states & the rural states. Bottom line is that rural states are highly dependent on revenue that the federal government distributes from the taxes it collects from the populous states. The funds flows are not limited to taxes, but are part of many utility fees that are then disbursed to rural areas. There's no way rural areas would get roads, electricity & telephone service if not for the cash they get from the populated states. You can call it whatever you want, but I don't think there's a place in history or in world where rural areas can be self-sustaining.

[Rob's House]

This is the age old battle between the more populous states & the rural states. Bottom line is that rural states are highly dependent on revenue that the federal government distributes from the taxes it collects from the populous states. The funds flows are not limited to taxes, but are part of many utility fees that are then disbursed to rural areas. There's no way rural areas would get roads, electricity & telephone service if not for the cash they get from the populated states. You can call it whatever you want, but I don't think there's a place in history or in world where rural areas can be self-sustaining.

 

You raise a valid point as it relates to utility fees. Roads and telephone and electricity as well as mail would make their way to rural areas, but they would often be more expensive than they are currently.

[Jim in Anchorage]

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should only be concerned with national defense.The States can handle the rest.

 

 

 

Can you give us back the ALCAN.

 

Like I said... Now that AK has a leg up and that oil money is flowing... Typical "we don't need anyone" approach. Where were you in the late 1940's and 1950's when the ALCAN was upgraded. I got no problem reverting AK back to the 1920s'... Rip out all the infrastructure.

Did you even read the post you have been so ineffectually arguing about?

WHY WAS THE ALCAN BUILT?

Oh and please tell me what gov't agency built the trans Alaska pipeline. All they did was finally get out of the way when the arabs shut off the oil.

[Dan]

I don't mean to be cruel, but unless you're being sarcastic (forgive me if you are), this is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. Conner has more enlightening comments at times.

 

To suggest that everything the Federal government "pays for" is progress and wouldn't exist otherwise is foolish. The public school system you mentioned is primarily provided for at the state and local level, as are most reservoirs for drinking water and so forth.

 

Additionally, where do the Feds get the money for these projects? From taxing the citizens of the states. Your assertion that TVA was some great improvement to the listed states only tells me that you swallowed everything your history teacher told you without question like a good soldier.

I'm not even sure there's a plane of existence where that interpretation can be drawn from my comments. With all seriousness, I don't even know where to start with a cogent rebuttal; toss in that it's late, I'm tired, and I have an early morning. So, I'm just gonna say.... good day, sir.

 

 

.....astounding

[ExiledInIllinois]

So you think that somehow lets you off the hook? Someone knows they're about to get major !@#$ing schooling and wants to run and hide. That's fine, Eric. It's pretty much what I expected.

 

Practice what you preach Darin. What the hell you babbling about? Do you even read? Major schooling? Me hide? I was pretty clear in my directive to you, it would be wise for you to listen for a change. I am not here to constantly get into a flame war with your troll tactics. Run along and come back when you get over your Napoleon complex.

[Alaska Darin]

Practice what you preach Darin. What the hell you babbling about? Do you even read? Major schooling? Me hide? I was pretty clear in my directive to you, it would be wise for you to listen for a change. I am not here to constantly get into a flame war with your troll tactics. Run along and come back when you get over your Napoleon complex.

Once again, you start something you know you're woefully uninformed on and then backtrack like a B word. The thing you're accusing me of is exactly what you're trying to pull off. And you know exactly "what I'm babbling about", Riddler. Your act has always been a little thin but the community tends to let you off the hook out of abject pity.

 

Frankly I don't care why you're here. If you're going to make a contention, have both the facts and balls to back them up.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Once again, you start something you know you're woefully uninformed on and then backtrack like a B word. The thing you're accusing me of is exactly what you're trying to pull off. And you know exactly "what I'm babbling about", Riddler. Your act has always been a little thin but the community tends to let you off the hook out of abject pity.

 

Frankly I don't care why you're here. If you're going to make a contention, have both the facts and balls to back them up.

 

It is not my serve. I backed it up why AK has a "leg up", you can go back and read. All you replied with was the usual baseless stuff you have been noted for:

 

"Alaska doesn't have "a leg up" but don't let that stop you from continuing to put your foot in your mouth."

 

 

Explain why AK does NOT have a "leg up."

 

Now put your money where your mouth is Napolean Douchebag.

[OCinBuffalo]

Fundamentally, there is a difference between "project" and "program".

 

Projects have specific goals, and you pretty much know when you have met them. You can pay to maintain them once they are completed, but that never costs as much as the project itself.

 

Programs can go on forever, provided you keep modifying/expanding their scope. There is no way to distinguish between a "maintenance" activity vs. a "new" activity if the scope is never or poorly defined.

 

The highways are a project, and that's why we like them. They were built, and though we still maintain them, the overall goal is complete, and understandable from the beginning to the end.

 

Medicare is a program, and nobody in the f'ing universe, including God, can define it's scope, much less its methods, which is why it's retarded.

 

IF the Federal Government confined its activity to projects, and not programs, most of the issues I have read above would be resolved. Most of you would agree, or at the very least have little to quibble over.

 

Unfortunately, Programs are how the Big Government jackasses make their corrupt payoffs.

 

We can't eliminate all programs, but things would significantly improve if we reduced their size to fit a clearly defined scope.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Fundamentally, there is a difference between "project" and "program".

 

Projects have specific goals, and you pretty much know when you have met them. You can pay to maintain them once they are completed, but that never costs as much as the project itself.

 

Programs can go on forever, provided you keep modifying/expanding their scope. There is no way to distinguish between a "maintenance" activity vs. a "new" activity if the scope is never or poorly defined.

 

The highways are a project, and that's why we like them. They were built, and though we still maintain them, the overall goal is complete, and understandable from the beginning to the end.

 

Medicare is a program, and nobody in the f'ing universe, including God, can define it's scope, much less its methods, which is why it's retarded.

 

IF the Federal Government confined its activity to projects, and not programs, most of the issues I have read above would be resolved. Most of you would agree, or at the very least have little to quibble over.

 

Unfortunately, Programs are how the Big Government jackasses make their corrupt payoffs.

 

We can't eliminate all programs, but things would significantly improve if we reduced their size to fit a clearly defined scope.

 

Interesting points. I understand what you are getting at. It is nice to know where the numbers are going.

 

I have slight heartburn with the red portion above.

 

The overall goal is never complete for a project.. Especially in areas that have a ton of issues that have to be maintained and REBUILT.

 

How much was it to build the interstates in the 1950's and 1960's? Now compare that to what it costs to maintain/REBUILD it today. I guess one has to figure in the return (to the economy)... No?

 

Take for example the "project" I work at and what it cost in 1960 to build... 6 million dollars, that is it.

 

Even with projects, it is always wise to think big because the cost will be much lower today.

 

So really... Aren't projects and programs the same? Except projects tend to be things built... Programs involve people ?? The "nice" thing about people is that they die.

[Alaska Darin]

It is not my serve. I backed it up why AK has a "leg up", you can go back and read.

No, you didn't. That's pretty typical given your rudimentary understanding of most things.

All you replied with was the usual baseless stuff you have been noted for:

 

"Alaska doesn't have "a leg up" but don't let that stop you from continuing to put your foot in your mouth."

It's not baseless. You regurgitate the same tired liberal crap which spawns from the way big government people set things up. That's a problem of understanding the consequences of action/inaction.

Explain why AK does NOT have a "leg up."

 

Now put your money where your mouth is Napolean Douchebag.

Alaska doesn't have a leg up because the Federal government hasn't come close to fulfilling the promises they made to the citizens in exchange for statehood. Instead, they seized enormous areas of the best land and put in copious regulations on what was left that all but assured they'd have to spend huge money to keep the citizenry occupied (like buying $35,000,000 hovercraft for a tiny town instead of building a road through seized land or stopping private resource development to buy off environmentalists in the Lower 48).

 

You know virtually nothing about this state other than a couple of very basic statistics that are symptoms of much larger and more complex issues, most of which are based on your political ideal failing (as it always does).

 

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, you blithering idiot.

[ExiledInIllinois]

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, you blithering idiot.

 

 

 

Figures. Nice post beating around nothing. Nice one Alaskan Breitbart, you got nothing to support your "federal gov't never lived up to what was promised" except: "Do your own research, you blithering idiot." I figured as much. Me bow out of this argument gracefully? You have your 35 mil hovercraft to back you up! The balls still in your court.

 

What's the point, with slugs like you... The Federal gov't can never live up to what you think was promised... That is, stopping short of moving AK to the lower 48.

 

Weave on Mr. Libertarian man... You should start a blog:

 

DoYourOwnResearch.com

 

Again... You are the one who jumped in with nothing and you still have nothing. Maybe one of your flunkies here on the board will attempt to ride to your rescue, you sure need it! Next time you rip someone with nothing but blather in order to start a flame war, be prepared to get owned little man.

[Alaska Darin]

Figures. Nice post beating around nothing. Nice one Alaskan Breitbart, you got nothing to support your "federal gov't never lived up to what was promised" except: "Do your own research, you blithering idiot." I figured as much. Me bow out of this argument gracefully? You have your 35 mil hovercraft to back you up! The balls still in your court.

 

What's the point, with slugs like you... The Federal gov't can never live up to what you think was promised... That is, stopping short of moving AK to the lower 48.

 

Weave on Mr. Libertarian man... You should start a blog:

 

DoYourOwnResearch.com

 

Again... You are the one who jumped in with nothing and you still have nothing. Maybe one of your flunkies here on the board will attempt to ride to your rescue, you sure need it! Next time you rip someone with nothing but blather in order to start a flame war, be prepared to get owned little man.

Perhaps the most hypocritical post in the history of this board, starting with the first sentence and ending with what basically amounts to a prayer. You can't win any kind of argument with me anywhere but your fat head. Color me less than surprised that's the best you can offer AND that you somehow think you're accomplishing something.

 

You can't bow out of an "argument" when you've offered absolutely nothing of substance. I can spell it out further if you require. The fact that you're concentrating on the most minimal facts tells everyone what you're capable of. That's the reason you continue to use the "Alaskans refuse to belly up" while ignoring that the citizens are taxed at the federal level EXACTLY the way you are and that the system that you liberals love so much is biting your enormous behinds because there are ALWAYS people smarter than you who will game it to their advantage. That's called risk, something liberals desperately want to eliminate, don't actually understand, and are the largest contributors to the negative.

 

I've never stated anything about moving Alaska to the Lower 48 or anything remotely similar. I've never voted for a single Alaskan politician that's represented the state at the national level and I'm absolutely disgusted by the fraud, waste, and abuse perpetuated on both the American taxpayer and the indigenous people by the representative delegation. The difference is, unlike you, I'm not part of the problem.

 

The "Do your own research" comment is probably the most appropriate use this board has ever seen. The Federal government has regularly seized land, resources, and passed laws that have cost Alaskans jobs their families have done since before statehood. It's a payola scheme and you're so stupid you blame the citizens instead of the politicians who're playing the game. The fact that you don't know the story is painfully obvious and your ignorance is on display for all to see.

 

Your state is corrupt because of people with your political ideology. The unions have basically broken the backs of the middle class with their pension system and even if they were a net gainer of Federal Money they'd still be more broke than a homeless man. Meanwhile, your governor is passing out double digit raises in a desperate attempt to keep the office he inherited from someone vaguely more corrupt than he is. Your response? Find a way to at least partially blame a state with a population less than 10% the size of Chicago. Nice projection, meathead. It's everyone else's fault. Typical ignorant liberal.

 

Now come on back with another pathetic retort - everyone here knows that's all you're capable of.

[drnykterstein]

Socialism can be benevolent to a point, as can a monarchy or a theocracy. The problem is that power corrupts. And that corruption makes the leadership go from benevolent to malevolent. And that pattern exists in both the government and private sector. We can't trust the government or private sector- we can only trust ourselves

Yeah, I just don't like those people around here who hear the term socialism and assume it involves an evil dictator. It's just an economic theory/system. It does not determine who gets elected or how they get elected.

[/dev/null]

Yeah, I just don't like those people around here who hear the term socialism capitalism and assume it involves an evil dictator corporation. It's just an economic theory/system. It does not determine who gets elected or how they get elected.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Perhaps the most hypocritical post in the history of this board, starting with the first sentence and ending with what basically amounts to a prayer. You can't win any kind of argument with me anywhere but your fat head. Color me less than surprised that's the best you can offer AND that you somehow think you're accomplishing something.

 

You can't bow out of an "argument" when you've offered absolutely nothing of substance. I can spell it out further if you require. The fact that you're concentrating on the most minimal facts tells everyone what you're capable of. That's the reason you continue to use the "Alaskans refuse to belly up" while ignoring that the citizens are taxed at the federal level EXACTLY the way you are and that the system that you liberals love so much is biting your enormous behinds because there are ALWAYS people smarter than you who will game it to their advantage. That's called risk, something liberals desperately want to eliminate, don't actually understand, and are the largest contributors to the negative.

 

I've never stated anything about moving Alaska to the Lower 48 or anything remotely similar. I've never voted for a single Alaskan politician that's represented the state at the national level and I'm absolutely disgusted by the fraud, waste, and abuse perpetuated on both the American taxpayer and the indigenous people by the representative delegation. The difference is, unlike you, I'm not part of the problem.

 

The "Do your own research" comment is probably the most appropriate use this board has ever seen. The Federal government has regularly seized land, resources, and passed laws that have cost Alaskans jobs their families have done since before statehood. It's a payola scheme and you're so stupid you blame the citizens instead of the politicians who're playing the game. The fact that you don't know the story is painfully obvious and your ignorance is on display for all to see.

 

Your state is corrupt because of people with your political ideology. The unions have basically broken the backs of the middle class with their pension system and even if they were a net gainer of Federal Money they'd still be more broke than a homeless man. Meanwhile, your governor is passing out double digit raises in a desperate attempt to keep the office he inherited from someone vaguely more corrupt than he is. Your response? Find a way to at least partially blame a state with a population less than 10% the size of Chicago. Nice projection, meathead. It's everyone else's fault. Typical ignorant liberal.

 

Now come on back with another pathetic retort - everyone here knows that's all you're capable of.

 

You think the people that you vote for (in AK) would be any different? What are you suggesting than? AK break free from the Union?

 

You are so wrong on why Illinois is corrupt. The reason why IL is so corrupt is exactly the same reason why AK is corrupt. It is due to individualistic culture.

 

And yes, you are part of the problem if you want to make it more individualistic.

[Alaska Darin]

You think the people that you vote for (in AK) would be any different? What are you suggesting than? AK break free from the Union?

 

You are so wrong on why Illinois is corrupt. The reason why IL is so corrupt is exactly the same reason why AK is corrupt. It is due to individualistic culture.

 

And yes, you are part of the problem if you want to make it more individualistic.

 

Pathetic.