Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 27, 2003, to establish a “Michigan Lifespan Respite Services Program” in the Department of Community Health, to develop and encourage statewide coordination of respite services with community-based private agencies, public agencies, and interested citizen groups

The vote was 106 in favor, 1 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 74 at House Journal 16)

Click here to view bill details.

 Respite services in Oakland County are inferior and dangerous for kids the money should be put into something else like afterschool care for all ages. Judson Center is a primary provider and they have more violations than any other agency.   

 every liberal in michigan should be railing against this bill.  it seeks to look for PRIVATE agencies to work with PUBLIC agencies, and interested PRIVATE citizen groups to accomplish what i'm sure they believe the almighty government could achieve on it's own.

isn't this counter to the nanny state principle?

Maybe, just maybe, the "nanny state" is your invention, not liberal's.

 once again, accusation without factual grounding. how often have the liberals on this site, yourself included, railed against private enterprise, private schools, private ownership, private businesses, private property and privacy in general?

how many times have you, or your fellow travellers, opted instead for personal responsibility over government control? how often do you hold those who will not work responsible for their own laziness? how often do you ASSUME that each right and liberty you intend to take from the citizens will end in disaster if allowed to FREELY be exercised? scare mongering and doom and gloom scenarios are commonplace from those on the left as is bluster and intentional, some would say institutional ignorance.

as an addition to your varied and, to some, left leaning reading list, may i suggest the ENTIRE constitution, not just the preamble.

 

I have never railed against private enterprise, private schools (I attended and graduated from one), private ownership, private businesses, private property, and certainly not privacy. You are following in crazy's footsteps of strawman building.

You are attacking windmills, Don Quixote.

I keep a copy of the constitution on my desk, in reach at all times. Sorry I've had to quote the preamble so often to you, but you just don't seem to get it. Once you get passed that, we can delve further into it.

 can you deny that you support bills that, if passed into law, would deprive citizens of rights?

jmangan:

I have never railed against private enterprise,

[prohibiting smoking in bars is counter to private enterprise, believing that you have the right to absolutely control business is counter to private enterprise.]

private schools (I attended and graduated from one)

[supporting mandatory public schooling is counter to the freedom to choose which school educates your child.]

, private ownership, private businesses, private property,

[you believe that bar owners do not 'own' their property, and thus have no right to exercise control over clientele, smoking issues, or even what kinds of food that may be served. you feel that government is necessarily the only entity entitled to make those decisions.]

 and certainly not privacy.

 You are following in crazy's footsteps of strawman building.

[pointing out facts as you have presented them is not strawman building. you seem to need cajun to be your strawman, or you have no one to insult.]

You are attacking windmills, Don Quixote.

[no, i am simply pointing out injustice as i see it. i see your views on freedom and rights as counter to the constitution, our laws, and our way of life. if they weren't, you wouldn't need these laws to give you what you demand from government.]

I keep a copy of the constitution on my desk, in reach at all times. Sorry I've had to quote the preamble so often to you, but you just don't seem to get it. Once you get passed that, we can delve further into it.

[perhaps you should read the part about not being able to infringe on other's rights.]

 

 it seems as if you ask the state to solve your personal problems, such as your problem with smoky bars, and you ask it to use the most draconian methods possible. you also ask the state to solve your problems with the right to hunt, and whether or not you believe that citizens should be armed. these questions have been solved decades ago, some centuries ago, just not to your liking. the right to petition the government for redress is to solve issues of quality of government, not petty issues of where you will imbibe next or whether you think feeding deer is ethical.

you certainly have a right to complain about your problems, you do not have the right to have government solve them all for you. you also do not have the right to expect other people to willingly give up their rights so you can enjoy your comfort more fully.

if you can find it in the constitution, i'd like to know where. so far, it doesn't seem that you have read exactly what your rights are, and whether yours trump mine, as you constantly insist that you have rights that don't fully exist. your 'right to clean air' is simply an expectation of clean air. unenforced for centuries, and unenforceable without these laws you support. how can you say you are for freedom and rights when you willingly throw my rights away for your pleasure?

you use the power of the mob, democracy, to install your will as law. you care not whether or not this law is counter to what is already in the constitution, as that doesn't matter to you. your will is paramount. your comfort above all. other's rights be damned.

[prohibiting smoking in bars is counter to private enterprise, believing that you have the right to absolutely control business is counter to private enterprise.]

No it is not. "Private enterprise" doesn't mean you can do what you want, endanger the publics health at will, for a profit.

[you believe that bar owners do not 'own' their property, and thus have no right to exercise control over clientele, smoking issues, or even what kinds of food that may be served. you feel that government is necessarily the only entity entitled to make those decisions.]

Government is the instrument of the people. It's purpose is to maintain order and stability in our society. Bar owners own their property. If they want to charge people for their service and products, certain rules must be followed, to protect both the client and the owner.

[pointing out facts as you have presented them is not strawman building. you seem to need cajun to be your strawman, or you have no one to insult.]

Let's get past this little ruse, ok crazy?

[no, i am simply pointing out injustice as i see it. i see your views on freedom and rights as counter to the constitution, our laws, and our way of life. if they weren't, you wouldn't need these laws to give you what you demand from government.]

I see your views, and raise you. If you want to try living without laws, there are a few places on earth that would suit you fine. Somalia comes to mind. Give it a try.

[perhaps you should read the part about not being able to infringe on other's rights.]

If your refering to Amendment IX: < 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.> That reinforces my position, that the people have a right to make laws and rules to protect their interest.

( it seems as if you ask the state to solve your personal problems, such as your problem with smoky bars, and you ask it to use the most draconian methods possible. you also ask the state to solve your problems with the right to hunt, and whether or not you believe that citizens should be armed. these questions have been solved decades ago, some centuries ago, just not to your liking. the right to petition the government for redress is to solve issues of quality of government, not petty issues of where you will imbibe next or whether you think feeding deer is ethical.)

You assume too much, crazy. I do believe it is the states responsibility to regulate private enterprise, so as to allow for fair commerce, and the safety of the public. I don't know of a problem with my right to hunt. Sure their are rules, but I can handle them. If citizens want to arm themselves, they have that right, according to the constitution. States also have a responsibility to make rules in that regard, to protect the public safety. I have stated in this forum, numerous times, I do not think there is even an ethical question involved in baiting deer. You must have a check valve in your brain, only allowing information out, nothing going in.

(you certainly have a right to complain about your problems, you do not have the right to have government solve them all for you. you also do not have the right to expect other people to willingly give up their rights so you can enjoy your comfort more fully.)

I don't need you to tell me my rights, I know them, and exercise them.

(you use the power of the mob, democracy, to install your will as law. you care not whether or not this law is counter to what is already in the constitution, as that doesn't matter to you. your will is paramount. your comfort above all. other's rights be damned.)

I use the power of reason and the law, and yes, democracy. The power of the "mob" is anarchy. That is your tool, not mine.

 

 

jmangan:

[prohibiting smoking in bars is counter to private enterprise, believing that you have the right to absolutely control business is counter to private enterprise.]

No it is not. "Private enterprise" doesn't mean you can do what you want, endanger the publics health at will, for a profit.

[of course we can. if we could not, cars could not be sold, cigarettes would be illegal, and alcohol would be verboten. they are all legal, very available, and TAXED VERY HEAVILY, and thus condoned by the government.]

[you believe that bar owners do not 'own' their property, and thus have no right to exercise control over clientele, smoking issues, or even what kinds of food that may be served. you feel that government is necessarily the only entity entitled to make those decisions.]

Government is the instrument of the people.

[no, sorry, government is the sum of the will of the elected representatives in this country. it used to be the sum of the laws of this country, but that was before democracy won out over common sense.]

 It's purpose is to maintain order and stability in our society.

[no, sorry, government's purpose is to govern. not to socially engineer the citizens.] 

 Bar owners own their property. If they want to charge people for their service and products, certain rules must be followed, to protect both the client and the owner.

[for over two hundred years, no rule has prevented smoking other than the 'rule' that says the owner makes the rules.]

[pointing out facts as you have presented them is not strawman building. you seem to need cajun to be your strawman, or you have no one to insult.]

Let's get past this little ruse, ok crazy?

[what little ruse? is paranoia gripping you? i'm not crazycajun. he is not me. we are two separate and distinct individuals. we are friends, and we talk often. we laugh, we joke, we learn from each other, but we do not occupy the same seat at the same time. if i were crazycajun, i'd have called you some sort of name by now. but i haven't. you, on the other hand, have tried to say that i have insulted you several times, then called me cajun. i haven't insulted you, and calling me cajun doesn't insult me. it is a nice try though. now, you were saying???]

[no, i am simply pointing out injustice as i see it. i see your views on freedom and rights as counter to the constitution, our laws, and our way of life. if they weren't, you wouldn't need these laws to give you what you demand from government.]

I see your views, and raise you. If you want to try living without laws, there are a few places on earth that would suit you fine. Somalia comes to mind. Give it a try.

[somalia has lots of laws. the law of the jungle comes immediately to mind. the law of war. the law of the current dictatorship. international law, and the law of survival. anarchists don't want to live without laws, only without kings. the anarchist ideal is a society where a king is not needed, as every man, woman, and child is self governing. an anarchy is a very disciplined society, unlike the picture you paint of pandemonium ruling the day. you worry that if there is no king, there can also be no dictator. no commissar, no union leader, no fuhrer.  

[perhaps you should read the part about not being able to infringe on other's rights.]

If your refering to Amendment IX: < 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.> That reinforces my position, that the people have a right to make laws and rules to protect their interest.

[but not to impress their whims on the rest of society. all of our rights are equal.]

( it seems as if you ask the state to solve your personal problems, such as your problem with smoky bars, and you ask it to use the most draconian methods possible. you also ask the state to solve your problems with the right to hunt, and whether or not you believe that citizens should be armed. these questions have been solved decades ago, some centuries ago, just not to your liking. the right to petition the government for redress is to solve issues of quality of government, not petty issues of where you will imbibe next or whether you think feeding deer is ethical.)

You assume too much, crazy.

[so do you, sane.]

 I do believe it is the states responsibility to regulate private enterprise, so as to allow for fair commerce, and the safety of the public. I don't know of a problem with my right to hunt. Sure their are rules, but I can handle them. If citizens want to arm themselves, they have that right, according to the constitution. States also have a responsibility to make rules in that regard, to protect the public safety. I have stated in this forum, numerous times, I do not think there is even an ethical question involved in baiting deer. You must have a check valve in your brain, only allowing information out, nothing going in.

(you certainly have a right to complain about your problems, you do not have the right to have government solve them all for you. you also do not have the right to expect other people to willingly give up their rights so you can enjoy your comfort more fully.)

I don't need you to tell me my rights, I know them, and exercise them.

[but you also willingly trample on the rights of others.]

(you use the power of the mob, democracy, to install your will as law. you care not whether or not this law is counter to what is already in the constitution, as that doesn't matter to you. your will is paramount. your comfort above all. other's rights be damned.)

I use the power of reason and the law, and yes, democracy. The power of the "mob" is anarchy.

[sorry, jman, but the power of the mob is democracy. the power of the self governing individual is the power of anarchy. you fear anarchy, yet you use democracy as a club. i have not used anarchy as a club, but you keep insisting that i do. i just keep insisting that you leave my rights, and the rights of other citizens alone. governments govern best that govern least.]

That is your tool, not mine.

[yes, my tool is less government, your tool is more intrusive government. notice how we wield our tools, i wield mine to better society, you wield yours as a weapon against the rights and freedoms of your fellow citizens. ]