Wow, your founding fathers really did think of everything. But doesn't that make the hole in the ozone layer unconstitutional?

------------------
"Why do you want to spend time with a deer? They're so stupid, they get hypnotized by headlights!" - Guido Anchovy

Hot DAMN!!

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This states, for anyone that actually cares about the supreme law of our country, that the government can't do ANYTHING that the constitution doesn't allow for. That would obviously include using the sun as a weapon o' mass destruction.

"Wow, your founding fathers really did think of everything."

They didn't have to. They KNEW that they couldn't. Thus the 9th/10th ammendments, since they really are complimentary to each other. The ninth states that just because the constitution doesn't say that I have a particular right doesn't mean that I don't have that right. So taken in entirity, the two ammendments state that the people can do pretty well whatever they want, so long as the constitution doesn't allow the government to forbid it (under Federal law, obviously, since state and local control is completely different). They also state that the government can do ONLY what is stated in the constitution.

Rights of people: Boundless, so long as they don't interfere with others.

Powers of government: Few. All enumerated in the constitution.

Simple enough for you?

"But doesn't that make the hole in the ozone layer unconstitutional?"

You mean that yearly cyclical thing that we have nothing to do with?

Gee, from my fun & handy guide to the Constitution come this explanatory paragraph:

"This amendment was adopted to reassure people that the national government would not swallow up the states. It confirms that the states or the people retain all powers not given to the national government. for example, the states have authority over such matters as marriage and divorce. But the Constitution says the government can make any laws 'necessary and proper' to carry out its specific powers. This rule makes it hard to determine the exact rights of states."

Therefore, my sarcasm bomb DID indeed detonate withOUT your disarming it (next time, learn to check for traps) & handed you 4d8 hit points of damge & causing you to lose 3 ego points. Plus kudos & shout-outs to the Washington G-Dog Posse for reading about Omega's birth in the Book of Nostradamus & effectively circumventing him. Dilly UP, yo'....

Of COURSE the government can make any laws 'necessary and proper' to carry out its specific powers. Otherwise, what good are they? But those powers are specifically enumerated in the constitution, and there are none beyond them.

Circ...circ...circle...ah. CIRCULAR REASONING. "See REASONING, CIRCULAR." Hmm. OK.

:::flips through pages::: Reas...reas...reason...ah. REASONING, CIRCULAR. "See CIRCULAR REASONING."

Hmm. OK.

Ah, nice strategy my friend, but after many a "diss", I do feel that "I'll punch your lights out" or a good, old "My Dad could beat up your Dad" are the two best choices for mindless rebuttal. Or you can lick them. They don't like that much.

"Not when there are warnings on the packs, you can't. People who start smoking have every opportunity to know what they're getting into. If I know that a substance is dangerous, and use it anyway, it's my own darned fault."

Point. But there ARE other companies who should be charged with criminal negligence and shut down, like say the company that is dumping pollution into the river, killing a person who lives downstream.

Speaking of Tobacco lawsuits, I somehow find it amusing that smokers are suing the tobacco companies for millions of dollars for whatever cockamamy reason they can think of. Not that I'm against these lawsuits, I just find them mildly amusing. Yes, Omega, I'm tempted to say "Well you got yourself in this mess. Go sue yourself".

"I didn't say that. I said they CAN. The government is the only entity that has the power to actually force you to do anything. I'm not willing to simply trust them not to excercize it."

Then what do you trust them to do then? Somehow, I feel you're an ultra-paranoid person afraid that the Government is going to kidnap and perform gruesome and disgusting experiments on you simply because they could draft a law that says so.

Not going to happen. Relax. Lighten up. Sooner or later, there will be an instance that you will thank the government for reasons OTHER than lowering taxes.

Speaking of power, when a group of people (namely business leaders) have a firm hold of the government's ear and spits out policies that only benefit them and no one else, and the government listens over the overwhelming opposition from everyone else, who has the power? It's all about influence. And Influence IS power these days.

"No one down here is suggesting this that I've heard."

Be sure to keep it that way. But keep in mind that there are many people who think that Ontario's politicians got their ideas from several US states. I've heard that New Jersey was one of them.

"Funny thing, then, that these are the same people who support school vouchers, which give the poor access to the first-rate education..."

I meant two-tiered education, as in the rich pay for first rate education, while those who can't afford it get sent to second-rate schools poorly funded by the government due to cutbacks and people saying "now that there aren't many people going to the public schools, we can cut public education". But they would make more cuts than they need to, and they would call them "justified".

Admittedly, I've heard about vouchers, but I don't quite know what they're about. People around here say they are bad, for some reason that I can't figure out. Could you educate us, o kind Omega?

"Companies don't lay off workers just to give higher-ups a bonus. That'd be stupid, and business owners aren't stupid (at least, not the successful ones). If they lay off workers, they have a reason. Namely, that they're not needed any more for whatever reason, or that they're not doing their job as well as needed. I SERIOUSLY doubt that you could find an instance where some poor sap is fired, specifically to give the boss a bonus."

Though information is outdated, I did hear that at one point, at the Royal Bank of Canada, they had a successful year. Yet they laid off hundreds of workers, mainly tellers, closed several branches, and the CEO by the name of John Cleghorn was given a bonus. If the branches were not needed, then the employees could have been reassigned to different and expanding areas of the business. Rather, the company gave them the pink slip instead.

Also I believe workers at the Calgary Herald went on strike when they discovered that higher-ups were getting a bonus of up to 25%, while the Herald offered a contract to its unionized workers that included a pay CUT and LAYOFFS. Something's not right here. Again, this is what I've heard, correct me if I'm wrong. And oh, BTW, the Calgary Herald is owned by Conrad Black, a newspaper mogul who furthers his ultra-conservative political views by the many newspapers he owns.

"If I say, "Ooh, this is labeled "cyanide". Don't know what that is, but I think I'll ingest some anyway," did I die due to the labeling company's neglegence, or due to my own stupidity?

You really think everyone oughta look up every substance before using it? Besides, someone might think cyanide is a candy, not a chemical. Not everyone is smart as you, Omega.

Okay fine. Broken record time. Sue me.

"If you want a government with that much power, then should you not also hold IT accountable for all those things over which it has power?"

*CLAPS* Right on. That's what government is supposed to be about anyways. Though admittedly, accountability is nowhere in Canada's political spectrum, left, right, AND centre.

As for First's comments. I agree with the majority of them. Especially the bit on Affirmative Action. It should be Affirmative Action through Education, not Force.

Of course. But that's why we have laws against that. The owner of the factory on the bank doesn't own the river, too, so he obviously can't pollute it.

"Then what do you trust [the government] to do then?"

Well, that's kind of an odd question. I simply don't entrust ANYONE with the power to take away my freedom.

And I'll say it one more time: there is a difference between paranoia and legitimate fear. Does the government have the power THEORETICALLY to take away my freedom? The answer is obviously yes, so thus I do not trust them.

"...when a group of people (namely business leaders) have a firm hold of the government's ear and spits out policies that only benefit them and no one else, and the government listens over the overwhelming opposition from everyone else..."

And you call me paranoid?

j/k, that's something to watch out for, too. But that's why we can vote corrupt leaders out of office.

"...second-rate schools poorly funded by the government due to cutbacks..."

*ahem*

WHAT CUTBACKS!? There have been NO cuts on the federal level in the ENTIRE Clinton administration, except in the military! The private schools I went to for my elementary years didn't cost HALF as much as the funding that most public schools get, and they did a FAR better job, too. The schools aren't second-rate due to funding. It's due to how they're run.

"...they would make more cuts than they need to, and they would call them "justified"."

Again, you're calling ME paranoid?

"Could you educate us, o kind Omega?"

With pleasure, grasshopper. You see, when a school is failing to teach its students, the parents of the children frequently have no recourse. They can't afford private schooling, and they can't send their kids to a different district. (Why they don't consider homeschooling, I really don't know. Perhaps the children aren't diciplined enough to do it on their own?) A voucher helps them do either, depending on their preferences. It gives the parents a choice regarding the education of their child, and I ask you, how can that be a bad thing?

As for your examples, I stand corrected. Sometimes successful business owners ARE stupid.

"You really think everyone oughta look up every substance before using it?"

Yes. Barring that, I'd get a legaly binding guarentee that the product is NOT harmful. 'Course, then you'd have to deal with the fact that it might kill you instantly, depriving you of the chance to sue, and you'd also have to proove that it was, in fact, that particular product that harmed you. So it'd probably be safer and simpler to actually learn about the things you consume.

"Besides, someone might think cyanide is a candy, not a chemical."

Which is why they should look it up.

"Not everyone is smart as you, Omega."

Well, that goes without saying.

"Boy, I really don't have time to make really large responses these days..."

Too bad. They're pretty well thought out.

UM:

Let's see. Shik and co. think they've made a point, which no one else seems to understand, and think they've trounced me. Nice strategy, but hardly credible.

Of course, since the Universe itself has the power to take away your personal freedoms, I doubt you'd trust it or believe in anything it had to say. In fact, I'm SURE you don't listen to it currently. I bet you'd shoot it, too.