The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Those were a lot of What ifs. I don't have a problem with government doing those things but I'm not sure what problem you have with the way I look at regulations. Individuals by nature are limited and small. We have things to do and there aren't enough hours in the day or money in the bank. Most of the time, when we get screwed, we can't do much about it because it is one person against an entire corporation. It seems like it would be prohibitively costly and bureaucratic to use the resources of government to facilitate every instance of wrongdoing against individuals. To me it makes more sense to have a set of rules and regulations in place and reasonable penalties and fines for businesses who fail to live up to those responsibilities. Obviously our current government falls far short of this ideal which is why I favor fixing it rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. I hope you respond to this because I really feel I have misunderstood what you are suggesting.I just reread it and I suppose if all lawyers were employed by the government then a fair and equal representation for both sides of any case could be more possible. But not only is that a very extreme and probably impossibly system to develop, but it would still probably be way more expensive and bureaucratic than what we have now. Not to mention possible Constitutional issues when I no longer get to choose my own representation.   See 105 other replies

its great your are   See 4 other replies

its great your are?   See 4 other replies

the very last word you were looking for was also "former." Although "prior" is perfectly acceptable. I just figured it was quite the palindrome eating away at you.   See 4 other replies

Hulu just doesn't care anymore does it? Weird how you say these things and then shirk the rules of the Hulu by making new accounts after it banns you. It is from a corporation you know and yet you fail to consent to its rules yet continue to use its service without abiding by the rules. The government also doesn't have a monopoly on force but its great your are expanding your phraseology beyond starving African babies. You can join a gang. The government has a bigger gang but you can certainly join a very large gang and avoid compulsion. Of course if a corporation reposes your house because of a contract you signed they will force you out by "putting a gun to your head" even though you don't want to leave. Corporations use force just like gangs do, they just do it through the government and are restricted in how they apply it by the government(since its their guns and jails). I am not sure why you think any company would just let you violate a contract and not do more than ask you nicely to do what the piece of paper says. If you stop word vomiting on discussion boards for a moment you would realize use of force is required for a "free market" to function. Those pieces of paper you sign mean "I will do what is written on here or people with guns will take things from me." The government is just the one that holds the guns. Keeps things consistent.   See 4 other replies

so you draw a clear distinction between those to, do you draw a distinction that mitt romney is against incurring more dept from forced spending to our next generation IS DIFFERENT than asking people to loan you money that is an investment and subject to risk?   See 5 other replies