How about Cecil the Lion vs the Fugitive Dentist?

[Xavier_Onassis]

As I said, I am not against hunting animals that are not threatened with extinction, especially if they are eaten.

Tourists that take pictures of large animals are better than tourists that kill them in Africa. African countries should decide their own policies and enforce them. They do not tell us what to do with our buffalo, I don't think we have the right to tell them what to so with their lions.

[kimba1]

It seem its not locally sanctioned so our outrage has not real opposition

[Xavier_Onassis]

The problem with the US government is not its size, it is its inefficiency.  Sweden has far less corruption with regard to its national resources than the US.
There are a lot of things we could learn from Sweden. Perhaps there are a lot of things they could learn from us as well.

Waving a flag and hollering "WE'RE NUMBER ONE!" does not make us number one.

[sirs]

SIZE BREEDS INEFFICIENCY.   .....BREEDS COMPLACENCY.   ......BREEDS BUREAUCRACY.   ......BREEDS GREATER ABILITY TO BURY/HIDE NEFARIOUS ACTIVITY

[Plane]

The problem with the US government is not its size, it is its inefficiency.  Sweden has far less corruption with regard to its national resources than the US.

If there is a spectrum would Sweden be near the blue end and Haiti near the red end, would the US be more green or yellow?

I would guess that the levels of corruption that people tolerate would be more dependent on tradition and culture  than on the government and its rules.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Haiti is nowhere near the corruption one finds in  Angola, Equatorial Guinea or Nigeria.

Swedes are extremely intolerant of corruption and unfairness. But in return, a much higher percentage of the people enjoy a better quality of life than Americans. The worst things about Sweden are due to geography: it is cold, and it is rather small and has less variety in scenery than the US. Swedes who come here to live are generally bored or simply running away from family problems. And they are rather few.

[sirs]

The bigger, more costly, more complicated the Government, only the big, more powerful, well connected, can handle & manipulate it, to their benifit of course. ....while the rest of us get steamrolled.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Corporations are a far worse threat to the people of this country than the Government.

Some company starts fracking near your home and you get flammable gas and/or fracking fluid coping out of your faucets, then government (the courts and the police) are your only recourse. You identity gets stolen and you get charged for stuff someone else has ordered on your account...if not for the law (the government) you are screwed.

You get a huge traffic ticket you cannot pay, and the county sells your debt to a collection agency and as a result you get jailed and lose your job. That is a corrupt government and a private corporation working in cahoots.

The larger and more powerful corporations get, the larger and more powerful government must be to protect you from abuse.

[sirs]

Not only do corporations not have the power to mandate how you are to live your life, they have no more than a fraction of a fraction of the power that the Government has.  Corporations can't tax you, if you don't comply.  Corporations can try to fine you, at which point, YOU CAN LEAVE, said corporation, or no longer support said corporation.  You can't leave the control of the Government

And what's worse is the point being made, that the bigger the Government is made to be, the less say and ability middle & lower class folk have, and the MORE POWER that wealthy individuals & corporations have in influencing policy that directly benefits them, while screwing the rest of us.

Bigger Government = Crony Capitalism at its worst

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is total bullshit. Corporations control every damned thing you do.
Now they want to buy the government as well.

[Plane]

  Corporations can do bad things ,so can government agencies.

   You are going to get nailed to the wall by the side that you give too much trust.

    Our founders had plenty of experience with big government and made it possible for peaceful people to fight for change in government bloodlessly.

     Regulation of companies by a government of the people is a good idea.

     Lets make it work. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

The British government in colonial times was not very big, but it was based on the premise that the King was sent by God to rule any way he wished, and that the subjects should obey him or be jailed or killed.

Commercial interests, such as the official importers of tea and other items used the British government to force the colonists to buy tea imported by them rather than the Dutch.

The Boston Tea Party was an attack on a British  company, but it was seen as an attack on His Majesty.

[Plane]

  So there was less demarcation between company and government?

    I know that some of the big companies had royal charters and noblemen in the administration, but there was an emergent merchant class that was allowing a lot of commoners to make good.

    This might be seen as progress if contrasted with previous times rather than contrasting with later times.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Members of the British peerage often established their own businesses and when necessary, rented soldiers to defend them.

The British nobility was given very favored treatment in their businesses if they sucked up to the King.  Some thought that any sort of business other than renting out their ancestral lands to peasants was beneath their station, and allowed their managers to establish businesses and run then for a fee.

[Plane]

Some thought that any sort of business other than renting out their ancestral lands to peasants was beneath their station, and allowed their managers to establish businesses and run then for a fee.

   Huh?


    I guess that even for a Duke it helps to have some imagination.