But once government forced the game to change everyone evolved and adopted

kind of like when government told car-makers to make less polluting cars. They eventually evolved and raised their game to a higher level. and we all got to enjoy slightly less polluting cars.

government puts pressure on business, tells them there's a new standard, and business rises to the occassion.

if a business can't operate at the higher standard then they go bankrupt, are removed from the field and a better and smarter company comes in and takes their place.

free market evolution. you get better or you die. so long as government slowly but steadily keeps increasing the standard of excellence required of buisnesses then all our lives gradually get better.

if, however, there is no outside pressure forcing them to improve or the government bails out idiot ceo's and keeps weak and inefficent companies running or lowers the standards to accomodate weak and stupid ceo's, than the quality of our lives gets worse. instead of the cars getting better, they stay the same or get worse.

isn't that what bush does? he lowers the standards or eliminates them and he uses the government to keep weak companies afloat and bails them out when by nature they should die making room for smarter companies to come in and take over.

Hmmm. There has got to be some sort of "free market" example in here somewhere.....

I guess I'd hate government rules, regulation and oversight to if my main goal was to spend taxpayer dollars to cheat on my wife.

Hee hee. Do ya think Rudy ever told his mistress, "Hey baby! Are you ready to see small government in action?"

ouch.

Is that too snarky?

I listened to the entire debate and was floored at how superior radio is to television.

First off, limiting the topics was a massive improvement! Instead of a 30 sec sound bite we got fairly detailed answers to complex questions.

Second, eliminating the cameras, the cheering audiences and eliminating the commercial breaks returned dignity to political discussions. Instead of reporters playing to the cameras or candidates egging on the crowd with applause lines – it seemed like an actual debate!

What I found most fascinating was the level of mutual respect between all the candidates -- who almost seemed to be working together to solve common problems. One candidate would say something (Like Clinton saying that labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization was a good thing) and then another candidate would offer a differing opinion (Biden explaining that, no, Iran doesn’t care about that anymore than WE would care if Iran labeled our National Guard a terrorist organization. Pointless posturing that serves no purpose). I especially loved their answers regarding the “threat” of Spanish language options on government phone trees. All handled with intelligence and thoughtfulness. I loved when Obama said that he’d keep Spanish as an option on government phone #’s because even legal citizens may not have fully mastered the English language yet and should not be denied government services or info because of that. How rational! How very…..un-Republican!

None of these candidates are in violent opposition to one another, but rather hold different views on how to achieve the same goal. How do we give everyone in America healthcare? What is the best, most effective method for engaging with Iran? What is the best method for dealing with current and future immigration concerns?

Yes, they differed but they all seemed to be intellectually engaged in a mature discussion on how to achieve the best results for our country and its citizens.

Now compare that to the Republican debates! Oh lord.

“I’ll torture!” “No, I’ll torture even more!” “I’ll follow Osama to the gates of Hell and drink blood from his skull!”

“Damn Mexicans!” “Wait! I don’t like Mexicans either!” “Me too! They get litter everywhere and don’t speak English”

“What about that commie universal healthcare?” “Man, I ain’t paying for a non-white drug addict to get a sex change operation!”

“Yeah! The gays are taking over!” “Wait! I hate gays even more than you do!” “No! I hate them more!”

(sigh)

Throw the children out and put intelligent Democrats in positions of authority. Vote for whoever you want, just make it a Democrat!

I wonder why Senator Çlinton didn't talk about her experience at the ˝Gaza airport, where nodding and smiling, she listened to Shua Arafat tell (in Årabic) how the Jews were using poison gas to give Årab women and children cancer. When Mrs. Årafat concluded, Hillary gave her a big hug and kiss.

While I'm not a huge Clinton supporter -- I'll give her some understanding on that particular incident (assuming what you described was an event that actually happened).

Diplomacy often means picking the right battles to fight and at the most opportune time.

In this particular instance the most constructive, grown up and intelligent thing to do (assuming Mrs. Clinton even spoke Arabic and even understood what was being said!) was to let it pass. It wasn't the right time or place.

Bush (or any caveman Republican for that matter) would have kicked Mrs. Arafat in the stomach, spit in her face (in front of all her countryman) and screamed, "America is hardcore, biatch! Suck it! America! Thug life 4-evah! You best recongizne all you biatches! Next time we kill all of ya'll!"

Having tried almost a decade of such antics under caveman, er, I mean the "war President" Bush -- we can clearly see being the "biggest bad ass" doesn't produce the dividends the neocons thought it would. If anything, being too much of a tough guy just sets the whole process back decades and makes everything hundreds of times harder. IMHO.

Again, diplomacy often means biting your tongue and working in ways that often don't get on the 5 o'clock news.