Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree, I think they are the exact same thing.
It's the difference between "Used Cars" and "Pre-Owned Vehicles". Saying "Stronger" puts a positive spin on it, saying "Controlling" puts a negative spin.
Stronger would mean representing the people rather than controlling the people. Stronger would mean supporting the people rather than their own interests. Stronger would mean leading and not enslaving via control. If you mean stronger as in "strong arm" tactics, then I agree with you 100%.
Stronger would mean representing the people rather than controlling the people. Stronger would mean supporting the people rather than their own interests. Stronger would mean leading and not enslaving via control. If you mean stronger as in "strong arm" tactics, then I agree with you 100%.
Your argument still doesn't make any sense to me.
"the people" are in disagreement about what's good for the country, so there's no way to represent them all. If there were unanimously "good decisions" and "bad decisions", and we all agreed on what those were, then maybe I could see where you're coming from. But there isn't, and that's why we have political parties that engage in debate.
Every single distinction you made (leading vs. enslaving, etc.) is simply a matter of perspective. The real issue that was posed by the OP was federal power vs. state power. A strong federal government is, by definition, one that controls.
I wish the "Federal Government" would start acting like one. One of the biggest problems with this is the fact that too many state governments don't want to resolve there own issues and go calling to "the big guys" when they have trouble.
If any change is ever going to happen it needs to start with the people and the state. The feds will never let loose the reins until the rest of us start taking back some control. Remember: We put them in the positions they have within "our" government. Don't let them feel that because we do this that they can have their way with us. Call your heads of state, voice your opinions. If we all as a country start taking a stand on issues that are important to us we could make change. Most of us let the government do what they want, then we cry about it and still do nothing. So what do we expect? You and I have the same rights and priveledges as everyone in the United States of America. Stand up for what you believe in and if you don't want to, then don't complain!
"the people" are in disagreement about what's good for the country, so there's no way to represent them all. If there were unanimously "good decisions" and "bad decisions", and we all agreed on what those were, then maybe I could see where you're coming from. But there isn't, and that's why we have political parties that engage in debate.
Every single distinction you made (leading vs. enslaving, etc.) is simply a matter of perspective. The real issue that was posed by the OP was federal power vs. state power. A strong federal government is, by definition, one that controls.
Let's just agree to disagree then as I think a strong government is one that leads and represents, that was how it was set up. I don't think there is going to be many times where there is not some form of disagreement.
Let's just agree to disagree then as I think a strong government is one that leads and represents, that was how it was set up. I don't think there is going to be many times where there is not some form of disagreement.
I agree, and I also feel that it is healthy for people to disagree. It is important that everyone have a voice and that we listen to each other. Sometimes we find that others have a better outlook on things than maybe you did.
Let's just agree to disagree then as I think a strong government is one that leads and represents, that was how it was set up. I don't think there is going to be many times where there is not some form of disagreement.
I can't 'agree to disagree', because it is not that I disagree with you, it is that I don't understand what you are saying.
Take National Health Care as an example. You stated:
Quote:
Stronger would mean representing the people rather than controlling the people. Stronger would mean supporting the people rather than their own interests. Stronger would mean leading and not enslaving via control.
If the federal government adopted a National Healthcare System, some people would say that the government was representing and supporting the people, and also "leading", by providing a service.
Other people would say that the federal government was controlling the people by forcing them to pay for this system. The government is serving its own interests, because a NHS would put more taxpayer money and power in the government's hands. Some people would say it is "enslaving via control", by limiting choices and wrecking the free market. Doctors would certainly feel "enslaved".
So one guy thinks National Health Care is "strong", the other guy thinks it is "controlling". If you can provide an example to illustrate your point, I may be able to at least understand what you're saying.
That is a good example but I would put that in the controlling department since the government has gone from representing and leading to providing. So I stand by argument that this is controlling the people, not representing them. I think it comes down to working with someone or something versus working for someone or something.
Using the national healthcare example, how about raising taxes to pay for healthcare? The individual does not have a choice in this matter and therefore is controlled by the government to paying for healthcare that he or she may not need or want. A strong leadership would allow for the individual to have choices in healthcare without being obligated.
If you think there is too much Government control now wait until the Democrats take everything over. Check the agenda folks. Read behind the lines. When The "Democratic Regime" comes to power in Washington and it will I hope they use their power to create a comprehensive Universal Healthcare Plan that works. Everyone deserves health care. Aside from that look back at the past Democratic rulers....Government controls everything.
Taxes will skyrocket, Big giveaways, meaningless programs, we will be attacked, but no one will inhale because it takes a village to sing "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow"......We should be singing "Meet The New Boss Same As The Old Boss." Same song different key.
If this post seems convoluted and ambiguous get used to it.....This is the Democrats way....Big Government keeps them hypnotized and hysterical
IMO a somewhat mixed bag. I recall a professor telling our class that as distasteful as it may be to some increasing Gov't. controls are inevitable--that it was an inborn "problem of democracy". He theorized that as society advances we will get less moral, much less ethical, more skilled at finding loopholes and pinholes and much more agressive at pursuing material gratifications. Human tendacies like the survival instinct, fear, greed and others would leave us with little other choice but to legislate and enforce or perish in the hands of one another.
As i look back (15+ yrs.) it becomes much clearer than when I heard this.
On the other hand steering our country on unchartered waters for the sake of fame or to appease the upper crusts of society is taking a very dangerous course especially if it does'nt work. This could qualify as detrimental steering, or control. Many free-trade zealots back in 1993 including our Pres. pushed NAFTA. Looked O.k. on paper to some but was vigorously opposed by many, including Richard Gephardt, Bryon Dorgan and Ross Perot. Clinton failed to secure binding side agreements with then Pres. Salinas of Mexico, to create labor, workplace and environmental protections. Not taking into account the vast differences in living standards between Mex. the US & Canada.
The lies and alibis continued and are too many to list and are mostly with us today. Among them is the lie that 170,000 US jobs would be created annually. Actually a million US jobs were lost as a result of NAFTA and the US trade deficit with Mexico is 9 times as large today as it was when NAFTA was signed.
Many of us are likely to hear a large sucking sound of economic vitality being siphoned beyond our borders till we are deceased. I haven't heard any admission of errors by our "leaders" or any real action to righten the ship!
It is typically a Republican kind of thing to act like they are the dissapproving parents of poor behaving children...hopefully once this adminstration is a memory the Democrats are in power...that will change.
BWHAHAHA!!!
Oh, wait...you were serious?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wait.......
Too much Gov't. control
