Jo Wrote:then let's do A Day Without A Government and see how we all feel then.

Jiggy Wrote:Our government was set up so that the people could take control if it started to get too big. Unfortunately I don't think the Founding Fathers anticipated us handing it over.

Jo Wrote:then let's do A Day Without A Government and see how we all feel then.

appreciate that you have a goverment. no matter how effed up it may be.

sunshyne Wrote:There is such a thing as too much government, and I feel that we are on the brink, if not already there. The bigger it gets the more problems will arise. When the government runs things versus the people, the programs are not successful; cost a lot of money, and fail to improve the situations.

sunshyne Wrote:yeah, could you go to any more of an extreme here? the title of the thread is Too much government, not, "I wish there was no government" .

Jo Wrote:let's see you do a better job before you bitch about it, all i'm saying.

don't like it? start doing something about it instead of opening your mouth. that's why we're so effed up, we're lazy people that talk a lot but are willing to take it up the ass from the government.

hotzester Wrote:Well I don't even necessarily mean just civil suit litigation. I'm specifically thinking of things like the gay marriage debacle. Let's put that on the ballot, and let the American people decide (or better yet, state by state). I'll go with whatever the outcome of the vote is. But to repeatedly challenge it in court, and have a JUDGE write law...that's completely unconstitutional. The judicial branch is not in place to ESTABLISH law. Same thing with abortion and Roe v. Wade. The courts wrote that law. It's supposed to be the legislative branch that legislates.

Gatorade Wrote:I don't think MOST people think that. I think they are the minority, but it's from them you hear the biggest noise.

Jo Wrote:exactly.

right now is a perfect storm of anger, fear, panic, and uncertainty. i keep expecting a movement where we stand up to government but i think we're all too comfortable with sitting in our recliners watching Tivo and eating a double cheeseburger to bother.

our founding fathers would be disgusted.

Bang! Wrote:So I take it everyone here likes their socialized police and firefighters?

lokizilla Wrote:Mad, I take it your not an Obama supporter.

Mad Dog Wrote:

lokizilla Wrote:Mad, I take it your not an Obama supporter.

I didn't vote for him, however I'm not necessarily rooting against him, It's just that there is a large segment of America that thinks Obama will part the Red Sea. I think it's funny.

lokizilla Wrote:Very true. It has to be found in the Constitution to make law.

potthole Wrote:

lokizilla Wrote:Very true. It has to be found in the Constitution to make law.

So... slavery wasn't banned to begin with in the Constitution, does that mean we should go back and allow it once more?

lokizilla Wrote:

potthole Wrote:So... slavery wasn't banned to begin with in the Constitution, does that mean we should go back and allow it once more?

The one thing that makes me so mad is when slavery is thrown in to validate a point. I dislike working at a place that automatically thinks I'm racist, because I am white. Just to make clear, half of my friends are black, between the other half it is a mix of any color. If you are nice to me I don't care. Here's my point:

The writers of the Constitution only allowed slavery to get the Southern states to sign the Constitution. The South was actually upset that the Constitution restricted importing slaves in to our country in 1808. The best thing about the Constitution, if you don't like something, it can be repealed, because it is left open for that, it is for the living, not for the dead. By the first part of the Constitution, we couldn't go back to slavery anyway. You can't import them in, and by it you can't order someone to be slave, how would you get a slave in the first place? Laws protect people, there is no way to go back to that horrid way of life.

Edit: If you are nice to me I don't care. Fixed from your....

Jo Wrote:

sunshyne Wrote:yeah, could you go to any more of an extreme here? the title of the thread is Too much government, not, "I wish there was no government" .

let's see you do a better job before you bitch about it, all i'm saying.

don't like it? start doing something about it instead of opening your mouth. that's why we're so effed up, we're lazy people that talk a lot but are willing to take it up the ass from the government.

Quote:So... slavery wasn't banned to begin with in the Constitution, does that mean we should go back and allow it once more?

Quote:The one thing that makes me so mad is when slavery is thrown in to validate a point.

hotzester Wrote:

Quote:So... slavery wasn't banned to begin with in the Constitution, does that mean we should go back and allow it once more?

Quote:The one thing that makes me so mad is when slavery is thrown in to validate a point.

Especially when all you need is about 30 seconds to research the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery on December 6, 1865, making the entire argument of "it's not in the Constitution, so should we bring it back" pretty much pointless.

hotzester Wrote:Where in my post did I say you're a racist? I actually did NOT include the statement in that post about how the poster is sometimes made to look like one....I left that out intentionally.

What you did ask, albeit rhetorically, was if slavery should be allowed because it wasn't in the original, ratified version of the Constitution. My point was that no, it should not, and that it's a ridiculous argument because it's already been prohibited with an amendment.

Now, if you're talking purely hypothetical, and that the laws should only reflect what was in the Constitution in 1789 (I believe that's the year it was ratified), and there are no amendments banning something, I think you could make the argument. I wouldn't even remotely agree, but I think the case could be made for such a position.

potthole Wrote:Also, never did I accuse anybody of being a racist, so please don't put those words into my mouth.

Krystal Wrote:I understand what you're saying, but right now we need government-supported jobs just to keep the economy going. If no one is working, they can't buy stuff and blah blah blah. Economics is cyclical and all that junk. So I am for larger government. We may not want to be France, but they've got a lotta shit I would like to have (like five vacation weeks a year and free college).

Quote:So I am for larger government. We may not want to be France, but they've got a lotta shit I would like to have (like five vacation weeks a year and free college).

Quote:I understand what you're saying, but right now we need government-supported jobs just to keep the economy going. If no one is working, they can't buy stuff and blah blah blah.

Quote:We may not want to be France, but they've got a lotta shit I would like to have (like five vacation weeks a year and free college).

hotzester Wrote:Government doesn't OWN anything, so they can't GIVE YOU anything. If you're getting it "for free", it is because you've already paid for it.

Quote:By Alana Semuels
January 2, 2009

RETAIL
New safety rules for children's clothes have stores in a fit

A Goodwill store in Los Angeles is among those that will be required to pay for private testing for lead and phthalates of all clothing for those under age 13.

Some owners say the cost of testing for toxic lead and phthalates will shut their businesses. The law goes into effect Feb. 10.

Barring a reprieve, regulations set to take effect next month could force thousands of clothing retailers and thrift stores to throw away trunkloads of children's clothing.

The law, aimed at keeping lead-filled merchandise away from children, mandates that all products sold for those age 12 and younger -- including clothing -- be tested for lead and phthalates, which are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable. Those that haven't been tested will be considered hazardous, regardless of whether they actually contain lead.

"They'll all have to go to the landfill," said Adele Meyer, executive director of the National Assn. of Resale and Thrift Shops.

The new regulations take effect Feb. 10 under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which was passed by Congress last year in response to widespread recalls of products that posed a threat to children, including toys made with lead or lead-based paint.

Supporters say the measure is sorely needed. One health advocacy group said it found high levels of lead in dozens of products purchased around the country, including children's jewelry, backpacks and ponchos.

Lead can also be found in buttons or charms on clothing and on appliques that have been added to fabric, said Charles Margulis, communications director for the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland. A child in Minnesota died a few years ago after swallowing a lead charm on his sneaker, he said.

But others say the measure was written too broadly. Among the most vocal critics to emerge in recent weeks are U.S.-based makers of handcrafted toys and handmade clothes, as well as thrift and consignment shops that sell children's clothing.

"We will have to lock our doors and file for bankruptcy," said Shauna Sloan, founder of Salt Lake City-based franchise Kid to Kid, which sells used children's clothing in 75 stores across the country and had planned to open a store in Santa Clara, Calif., this year.

There is the possibility of a partial reprieve. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is responsible for enforcing the law, on Monday will consider exempting clothing and toys made of natural materials such as wool or wood. The commission does not have the authority to change the law but can decide how to interpret it.

But exempting natural materials does not go far enough, said Stephen Lamar, executive vice president of the American Apparel and Footwear Assn. Clothes made of cotton but with dyes or non-cotton yarn, for example, might still have to be tested, as would clothes that are cotton-polyester blends, he said.

"The law introduces an extraordinarily large number of testing requirements for products for which everyone knows there's no lead," he said.

Clothing and thrift trade groups say the law is flawed because it went through Congress too quickly. By deeming that any product not tested for lead content by Feb. 10 be considered hazardous waste, they contend, stores will have to tell customers that clothing they were allowed to sell Feb. 9 became banned overnight.

These groups say the law should be changed so that it applies to products made after Feb. 10, not sold after that date.

That would take action by Congress, however, because the Consumer Product Safety Commission's general counsel has already determined that the law applies retroactively, said commission spokesman Scott Wolfson.

The regulations also apply to new clothing. That won't be a problem for large manufacturers and retailers, industry experts say, but it will be a headache for small operators such as Molly Orr, owner of Molly O Designs in Las Vegas.

Orr has already produced her spring line of children's clothes. She says she can't afford the $50,000 it would cost to have a private lab test her clothing line, so she's trying to sell her inventory at a steep discount before Feb. 10. After that, she is preparing to close her business.

"We have a son with autism, so we are all about cleaning up the toxins that our children are exposed to," she said. "But I think the law needs to be looked at more closely to see how it is affecting the economy in general."

Thrift store owners say the law stings because children's garments often come in new or nearly new, because children typically outgrow clothing quickly.

Carol Vaporis, owner of Duck Duck Goose Consignment in New Port Richey, Fla., said her store stocks barely used brand-name clothing from places such as Limited Too and Gymboree.

"We really provide a service to the community to help people get clothes for their children they otherwise couldn't afford," she said.

Families have been bringing more clothes to consignment stores, where they get a chunk of the proceeds, to earn a little cash this winter, she said. She plans to contact her congressional representatives and senators to ask them to amend the law but says there's not enough awareness about the repercussions of the law to force anything to change.

Many retailers and thrift stores appear to be unaware that the law is changing. Of half a dozen Southern California children's thrift stores contacted by The Times, only one had heard of the law. Organizations such as Goodwill say they're still investigating how the law will affect them because there is so much confusion about what will be banned.

Cynthia Broockman, who owns two consignment stores and a thrift shop in Virginia, recently stopped accepting children's products for resale. That raised the ire of a man who was trying to sell his son's castoffs there and had not heard of the new rules.

"I think it's not understood by people how sweeping and far-reaching this is," she said. "The ripples that are going to go forth from this are just astonishing"