Big girl Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 Imagine if they didnt have to be built to code. That would be a disaster, builders would cut cost to make more money. Quote
Big girl Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 Rivers should not catch on fire. I dont care what you guys say LumRaiderFan 1 Quote
stevenash Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 Cost cutting? Hmmm- Very much a foreign word to the Fed Quote
stevenash Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 And I should not have to pay for Sandra Flukes birth control, I don't care what you say. Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 Rivers should not catch on fire. I dont care what you guys say I disagree...I think that rivers SHOULD catch on fire...and I'm quite sure all my Republican friends agree. 77 1 Quote
TROJANSWIN Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 Imagine if they didnt have to be built to code. That would be a disaster, builders would cut cost to make more money. The problem then is that we must be protected from ourselves. We are not as smart as the government and must be protected buying a bad product. Imagine this, a company builds a house and it falls down because the government didn't tell them how to build it. No one else buys a house from that company. That company goes out of business and quits building houses. The companies whose houses don't fall down sells a bunch of houses and makes a profit. Would you call that micro or macro economics? Quote
stevenash Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 How dare you suggest that a free market is more efficient than the Federal Government. Quote
Big girl Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Cutting cost so they end up building a terrible home. I know a guy whoes foundation starting cracking 2 yrs after it was built, another lady had an electrical fire (same builder). Another lady had problems with her roof. This should not happen in only 2 yrs. The builder apparently did not build up to standard. They are now being sued.. Quote
stevenash Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 And the courts will settle the matter. If the builder you are referring to, did this in error, he will pay for his error in the court case. If it is a regular way of conducting business, he wont be in business much longer. The markets are better equipped to punish/reward than the government is. Quote
TxHoops Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 You do know the judicial branch is a part of the "government"? That judges are paid by the "government"? Quote
stevenash Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Yes, I do. And that ought to be the extent of government involvement. Quote
TxHoops Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Hey, I am pleasantly surprised you support their right of redress there! I would agree that's the best venue to handle such issues. Quote
stevenash Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Why should you be surprised? Have I ever said anything that was critical of our judicial system? I must admit I have concerns about frivolity within the system but, then again, no system is perfect. I have another question for you that I once asked before but either missed your response or perhaps you didnt answer. You appear to have a problem with Smitty on this forum. The great bulk of what Smitty complains about is our failure to adhere to the constitution. Wouldn't you agree that following the constitution is the right way to go? Quote
kicker Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Rivers should not catch on fire. I dont care what you guys say Big Girl, we all agree with you that when a body of water catches on fire it is not normal and most likely bad. What we dont agree with is the far overreach of the Epa and the burden they put on economic growth. Common sense and moderation is the main problem with the EPA and most other government agencies because they dont use them. The government was not set up by our fore fathers to be the solution to our problems but rather a tool to use. I think the EPA can be a very useful agency if they would stick to what they were initially conceived for. Quote
TxHoops Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Why should you be surprised? Have I ever said anything that was critical of our judicial system? I must admit I have concerns about frivolity within the system but, then again, no system is perfect. I have another question for you that I once asked before but either missed your response or perhaps you didnt answer. You appear to have a problem with Smitty on this forum. The great bulk of what Smitty complains about is our failure to adhere to the constitution. Wouldn't you agree that following the constitution is the right way to go? In principle, yes. Smitty's "grasp" of the constitution is a different conversation altogether. I didn't mean my surprise to mean I had read anything on this board to suggest you felt otherwise about the legal system. I was pleasantly surprised by your attitude on the subject. See what happens when I ASSuME? Broke my own darn rule!! Quote
stevenash Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Ok- I guess you are saying that Smitty doesn't understand the constitution and/or its intent very well? The only time I get troubled by the legal system is when it gets abused to extort money from individuals which is what I believe is happening with the guy who is suing the Yankees and ESPN because he was shown sleeping at the game. Quote
TxHoops Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Ok- I guess you are saying that Smitty doesn't understand the constitution and/or its intent very well? The only time I get troubled by the legal system is when it gets abused to extort money from individuals which is what I believe is happening with the guy who is suing the Yankees and ESPN because he was shown sleeping at the game. Completely agree with your frustration and the example given. Cases like that one gives the system a bad name. Quote
westend1 Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 If the constitution was easily understandable, we wouldn't need a supreme court. Quote
TxHoops Posted July 11, 2014 Report Posted July 11, 2014 If the constitution was easily understandable, we wouldn't need a supreme court. Excellent point. I had the great fortune (although I thought I was most unfortunate at the time) to take con law from the late, great Charles Alan Wright. He was/is considered one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in our history. Amazing man. Quote
Big girl Posted July 11, 2014 Report Posted July 11, 2014 There are politicians that want to "do away" with the EPA. That is not wise. Quote
stevenash Posted July 11, 2014 Report Posted July 11, 2014 And there are other politicians who want to extend the reach of the EPA to a very dangerous level. They are currently claiming they have the power to garnish wages without approval from anyone. Sorry, but that is going to far. Quote
smitty Posted July 11, 2014 Report Posted July 11, 2014 There are politicians that want to "do away" with the EPA. That is not wise. We could cut the EPA in half and get it out of areas it does not belong. Can you think of any of these areas? Quote
Big girl Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 I am talking about politicians that want to do away with the EPA. Didnt perry mention that? I dont want any more rivers catching on fire.... Quote
TROJANSWIN Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 Big Girl, what does the federal government do for you that is worth the $42,000 in taxes you are paying? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.