Gas prices

Riley wrote: Eric, educating kids about the safe use and handling of firearms is a great way to teach young people resonsibility.

Just like my dad with me. Taught me how to be safe with firearms,hunt, and be safe. I agree with you complety Mr. Riley..   

im not going to even apoligize for the rant, ive owned many guns, hunted, in wake of the recent killings here in Ohio, I really think its about the irresponsible ones that own guns, when i was 13 or so I watched 3 kids next door to me, i was a kid, well their old man had a 12 gauge leaning up against his closet door, i picked it up aimed it a few times even at the kids, i was a kid, pulled the trigger and blew a hole in the closet wall, the safety wasnt even on.....
when my son is of age i will take him out and go hunting, but yes, it does sound like we want a "police state" arm everybody is not the answer. there is no reason in the world a man needs to carry a side-arm unless you are in law enforcement

and last time i checked, mostly, ia shotgun is used for hunting, not a hand gun, alls well but most of the time the ones that own a handgun have never ever been out hunting and never have been trained to use a HG

sorry, meant non, the kid that killed 3 over here in ohio is a good example of non being taught gun safety and had access to his grandfathers gun, your theory works on paper, but not in the real world

you cant teach curiosity.....

Eric gun safety means knowing not to pick up your friend's father's shotgun when you see it...the kid in Ohio was a crack pot. The grandfathered obviously didn't have his guns secured which was wrong on him. My theory works in the real world as I never worried about my kids doing what you did, which is normal for an uneducated kid.

Considering th prevalence of guns in our society, maybe our schools should be gun safety zones instead of gun free zones.

LOL, and you probably thank your lucky stars on that one, too!

harddock wrote:    To John B, You say you are for gun ownership but don't want guns registered? I don't understand. What is the problem with registering your guns? Here in MA you need to be licensed to purchase, and your weapons are registered. We have a whole lot of people with a whole lot of guns, and there all legal. We also have a trigger lock law.(Sure there are criminals with some that aren't) For the law abiding people, they have no problem with registering.

Why register gins? The owners are the problem. Individual gun registration = big government. I thought none of you liked that. It takes an office full of people just to keep up with the owners background checks. Imagine fhe manpower to register each gun too. If you can own a gun who cares which on or how many?

JoeinNY wrote: We left a government we had no say in to create one that we elected- no taxation without representation was the cry... not no taxation. If I am to believe overmyheads posts about what convervatives currently think it is that we should not let our elected government protect us from the rich… his arguments were the exact ones used to defend the royalty and the lords back before the advent of democracy in the day.. they provide the jobs, trust them they will take care of us… it is their right.      Without a strong democratic government there is no freedom.. not anytime in history and not anywhere in the world. That doesnt mean the government should be used to regulate what goes on in your bedroom, should limit your speach, or tell you where to live or how to make your living. However, it damn well better regulate some things or those who have more money and are willing to act unethically will control you, without representation in ways the goverment never could. Limits on all things... but look at the facts and then discuss and vote on where the limits should be... the right wing simply is currently not controlled by lovers of knowledge and facts many of those that control the money have chosen to double down on failed policies rather than except reality.. and it isnt going to end up pretty. It starts with the tone.. label them a liberal and dismiss them as a sissy. Them there liberal tree huggers, hah we are better armed then them there wussys.. A.. not true, B what good is it gonna do ya? It is just silly talk to seperate you from your countrymen to fight over non issues to let the monied interests continue to buy success instead of work hard and innnovate to be successful. Its the age old fight of the bourgeoisie fighting for the status quo, not because it is better either for the country or for them but because they know it and in it they are the winners. Only problem with maintaining the status quo is that the american dream is to be able to through hard work and innovation rise above and challenge the status quo. We have heard from one person on all these silly threads that comes close to being a liberal... and then a few moderates.. a few actual conservatives and then a bunch of right wingers that have drank too much coolaid and have some views that certainly arent conservative. Dave he is basically hoping for some benevelent oligarchy where if we are really nice to the rich and let them do whatever they want they will magically sprinking jobs down upon us. That aint exactly the american dream I have in mind.

Joe, They call this country the great experiment, I see it as two experiments. The first century and a half was the experiment of limited government, during which we grew to be the the richest and most powerful country in the world, with the biggest middle class, but the last 3/4 century we have been experimenting with a move towards socialism, leading to a decline in our world status and an ever increasing divide between the rich and the poor. How long would you have us continue this experiment before we accept that it does not work. Could it maybe be possible that there is a correlation and big government is actually causing the divide? Maybe we have a group who's thinking is so stuck in a box that they cant stand to think outside of it? And the royalty and lords would be the equivalent of government, not the private sector

That said, this country is not perfect, After somebody brought up treating patients with leaches a week or two ago it got me thinking. I am working on a parasite vs, symbiosis theory as to what causes our problems. I am curious to see what other think so excuse my ramblings. I so far have identified three areas that are supposed to be symbiotic for the country but turn out to be parasitic, sucking our life blood. They are 1) Government 2) tort lawyers, and get ready for number 3) corporations.(still think I mind numb and repeat what I hear on FOX News?

The government is easy. As originally envisioned by our constitution it was designed to be a support system that provided only the things that individuals could not easily do, such as an army, regulation of interstate commerce, infrastructure, which all can be funded at a minimal hardship, and when limited, the forces of corruption can be controlled. This would be a symbiotic relationship. Unfortunately by growing the government we have let a genie out of the bottle, adding increasing parasitic burdens of corruption and wealth redistribution which in turn rewards non-contributers. The solution is to reduce the size and influence of government. No surprises for you there.

The second is tort law, this was to be a self regulating force, if an individual can prove damages from another they would be required by tort law to compensate them, thus people would be discouraged from doing wrong. Again a symbiotic relationship. Two things have gotten out of control, the first is punitive damages, which far exceeds the actual wrong committed and ads huge societal costs. But I understand that small awards might not effect a companies behavior. Possibly punitive awards should be limited and go someplace other than to the plaintiffs and attorneys to discourage frivolous suits, maybe to charities or industry funds to improve conditions that lead to the lawsuit in the first place, unfortunately that would likely end up a big government solution(see number 1). Another problem is lawyers who work on contingency, and collect 30% of an award even though they were not wronged themselves. Again this has become parasitic. I would like to see some type of tort reform, but I struggle with the formula.

Finally number three. I have struggled for a long time with corporations in America, There are parts of corporate operations where market forces seem to be eluded, such as golden parachutes, and some executive compensation. I hate to concede this to Seth's side, but I came up with a new theory yesterday. Our constitution is based on individual rights, and along with individual rights comes individual responsibility. I am not sure corporate ownership really fits with individualism. Corporations were designed to relieve individuals from responsibility, although corporate losses can be significant they still isolate the individual, which allows for some risky and less than ethical behavior that might otherwise not occur if a persons personal assets were on the line. Of course increased risk can create increased rewards from which the government gets increased tax revenue. Publicly funded corporations add another layer of problems. The company is no longer just responsible to just itself (owners, management, employees....) and its customers, but it has to compete for stockholders which siphons off resources and changes decision making. The stockholders themselves do not get the exposure of an owner, they are isolated from the effects of the decisions that are made for their benefit, they can sell a stock at a profit and have no responsibility for the actions that generated the profit, and as a group they become a mob, with mob thinking, which can bring out the worst in peoples behavior. The board of directors is supposed to be like the balance of power within our government, and place a check on the management. This may be the most corrupt part of the system. I do not see them as making the most ethical of choices. Government is not the answer to this problem, attaching a parasite onto a parasite just increases the demands on the host. I also like to be able easily invest in a diversified portfolio, it would be much riskier to have to partner with one or two business ventures to try to grow wealth, so this is the toughest nut to crack. But I am beginning to believe privately held companies would be better for the country.

Now I need to do some research, Are any of you experts on the history of corporations and willing to share a NON BIASED opinion on what constitutionally allows them?

Maybe this thread has gotten too serious:

The Democrats do have a choice besides Obama

There are winners & losers in any change.

Rich people can be very sore losers!

GlassSeeker wrote: I know someone who was in the mortgage business and had incorporated in the belief that it would protect in the event of a lawsuit. When values plummeted the corporation was sued, so was the individual and the appraisers and anyone else that the plantiffs/investors could think of. So the idea that it insulates is flawed in my experience.

There's nothing to stop anyone from sueing you personally, and with appraisals, there's no statute of limitations. E&O insurance only protects the appraiser from law suits during the year that the appraiser is insured. It doesn't insure the appraisal. So, even if you get out of the business, you got to carry it for another 10+ years as appraisals that become an issue are usually several years old. FNMA is now having appraisals reviewed that are as old as 8 years, I guess hoping to go after the appraiser. Now I know why most lawyers have their houses in their wife's name.

Double edge sword is when you're a teacher with say 15 years experience and looking for a job, the union rules require you be paid a certain amount that is significantly higher than someone with less years. School departments all have money problems, so while they say they want the most experienced people, they actually want the least exspensive, so they hire the least experienced, making the exerienced teacher non hirable. Because of union rules, the school district can't hire the more experienced teacher for the lower rate even if the more experienced teacher is willing to work at a lower pay scale.