>Who might your governmental appointed custodian be?

With a government, there is a government ... no custodian necessary.

Look, you are pissed because you have lost control of your government. I get it. The answer to your loss of control is not killing off the government. At least, I don't think so, but maybe you are an anarchist. But, if you aren't then, the answer I recommend to you is to regain control. Otherwise, without a governing body, you will need a fifedom.

But, if you believe in government, as long, as it is with the consent of the governed, the question is -- how will you regain control? Will it be anarchy? Revolution? Getting corporate money out of politics? Doing away with the Electoral College? Dismantling the Federal Reserve? There are lots of creative ideas.

And, I like the libertarian ideals of "pull yourself up by your boot straps" and together "let's roll..." mindset. I think it is needed especially now in wresting OUR government back from the people and organizations who control it. And, so, we come full circle.

I want to ask you, Oak -- has the media brainwashed you so much that you think you can't see the truth? Because, I don't think the media has brainwashed me so I can't see the truth, either. And, on certain points we may disagree. But, I hope we agree that we prefer a government, of the people, by the people, for the people. And, I want to direct your attention to the OZ you mention. Who owns the media?

BTW The "Law" also states that Congress will set a budget each year and stay under the Debt Ceiling.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

I see your point now. In the absence of complete control all that is left is anarchy. Who might your governmental appointed custodian be? Surely you can't be left to monitor your own vices can you? Without supervision and direction you would be Genghis Khan reincarnate before kickoff on Sunday.

You however sir come from a land where black is evil and dangerous unless it is in human form and then it is repressed.

I surely do know the answer, it's called the media. Release a poll that shows voters respond positively to the color green more than any other and count the number of green ties on politicians the following week.

Your but a victim of the same media. You and I have different points of view; you see a way to gain a heart, a golden road....

I see the Oz behind the curtain.... And his name is not Barack Obama. Obama is the Oz you are meant to see.

>The government enslaves now.

This is the underlying issue. This is how you see it. But, dig deeper.

Our constitution envisioned a government "BY THE PEOPLE". So, if this is true, and the people are enslaved, then it is ourselves who enslave us. The question really is who controls the government? Is it the people?

I think I know the answer. Do you?

And, it really doesn't matter what the POTUS SAYS about the law. What matters is what the laws says about the law. Which, in fact, is the whole point here. We have some laws. And, our representatives are sworn to uphold the laws, for better or worse, until they are legally challenged and legally changed.

Otherwise, we really don't need a government -- we can just return to warring fiefdoms. Which I happen to think is the agenda of the Libertarian anarchists. Anything I want goes, as long as I have a gun.

BTW, I agree with you -- hippies were not liberals.

Precisely the myopic response I expected. Dig deeper and you will see that your ignorance of and disdain for Republicans is very much akin to the racism you made note of. Slavery is still here, it has just taken on a different face. The government enslaves now. As far as for your view of Pelosi, if you had the capacity to see her for what she is you would surely recognize that hippies didn't end Vietnam. However if you want to try to navigate that waterway the hippies were also against Government telling them what to do and how to live.... Sounds more like conservatism than liberalism.

Ever listen to the song "Signs" by Five Man Electrical Band? That is our present administration telling everyone how to live and what they can't do.

SCOTUS ruled Obamacare is a tax, that is a huge contrast to what the POTUS says it is and is not.

PS I am neither Republican nor do I live in a world where an avatar had a specific meaning. You are novel but not quite humorous.

So....you think that the peace movement ( largely lead by the young ) of the 60s had no effect on the course of the Vietnam War? And, you think the anger and passion, of not just the youth, but of all men and women of conscience had no effect on civil rights in the 60s? Without anger, passion and a stirring of conscience for abolition, I'm pretty sure slavery would still be with us.

And, btw, Nanci Pelosi isn't young. Nor do I see her as emotional or illogical. Who I do find illogical is the Republican Party right now.

Let's see ....they don't like a law that was legitimately passed by both houses AND ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court ( incidentally, BY the most right-wing court we have seen in generations ) and the Republican Tea Party extremists seem to want to shutdown our government over it. That, Mr. Oak, is not just illogical, it is anarchistic.

And, the fact that these jerks continue to pay themselves, for a job they are not doing, show them to be exactly as you describe: emotional vessels void of logic --- but full of a callous disregard for the laws they are sworn to uphold.

And, if that scowl your icon wears is indicative of your demeanor, then I recommend you turn some of that anger, and passionate disdain toward the men and women who obviously sit your side of the aisle.

Go ahead, make my day.

The anger, passion, and ignorance of youth has never corrected the course of a ship.

Watch Pelosi talk, she is nothing but anger and passion. An emotional vessel void of logic.

You sound like a Nero. As bad as things have been -- I assume this last is fuel for yet more apathy. But, I will agree it is probably only the anger and passion of youth that can save us now.

It certainly is not a renaissance. I would love it to be so, but I'm not that naive. America's only hope is to avoid total collapse, as I don't think it will ever be near the same.

My opinion really has nothing to do with this shutdown, though. This has been my thought process for at least the last four years. Our government has proven for a very long time that they are all about themselves, so why should we be surprised by this latest development? I know I'm not.

The Republic is dead.

Long live the Corpocracy.

As long as popularity and electability are the focus of our officials, public opinion will polarize parties and grind this country to a halt.... After all is said and done, this country is divided between two fundamental personality types and their polar opposite nature is not something that can be swayed easily... Its hard wiring and those that are possibly in the middle have no chance as their numbers are too small.

If you want to see a Government's or a persons true nature, ban climate surveys (polls) and force them to act on their own volition. Completely remove their ability to demonize their opponents voices and let their decisions and actions stand on their own merit.

The only reason conservatives and liberals go at each other is because like Pavlov's dog they have been conditioned to do so. Many a great friendship has not survived the knowledge of knowing the others political stance.

So very true

Well said ....

Xan - if you wish to look at the economic costs associated with guns, dont just focus on where the guns are. Try looking where they are not, at the costs associated with low gun ownership in the UK but having somewhere near a 5x-10x crime rate.

Which is why the Bill of Rights should only be amended with positive rights.

Yet again, you refuse to answer a question. I'm not even arguing with you, necessarily. I'm asking what your view is. Should they remain banned? Yes or no will do.

Again, PED's HAVE been studied for years. Is there more to learn about them? Sure, I would think so. But everyone knows the main risks of these drugs, and there is a reason you have to have a prescription. In the case of athletes, it is seen as an unfair advantage. Whether or not you believe it gives an athlete any advantage, I think in the case of rehabilitating, it should be allowed. If you are being supervised, where your doses are being charted, then you can regulate how much an athlete is using. You're not going to gain an advantage unless you use constantly. That is where the line should be drawn between use, and abuse.

Doctors would not prescribe these drugs to patients without first testing them for effectiveness. I think you are making a grand assumption by suggesting we don't know enough about these drugs. I think we know plenty. But it has been deemed immoral for athletes to EVER use these drugs. Why, I don't know. That is the issue. And that should be the conversation.

Not more testing.

Well what is your opinion on the use of steroids, as of now, without studying it? Do you think it's good or bad? Or do you believe it can be good if used in proper increments?

As I said above, I think it's fine to use steroids to recover from injury. I think it should be legal for that use only. The fact that it's totally banned from sports seems rather self righteous of these sports entities. There are negative side effects, and that as already been established. I don't think more research is really necessary to determine whether or not steroids should be legalized.

If regular citizens can use it, so should athletes. If you take steroids after your rehabilitation is completed, then you deserve to be punished. Aside from advantages, it's just plain not smart, health wise, to use these drugs over an extended period of time.

I didn't read the whole thread. I can tell from the first post you're leading up to a requirement that those who own guns purchase some sort of liability insurance.

Well, who's going to buy insurance for all the illegal guns - you know, the ones used in most crime? You idea just added yet another financial burden to "we the people".

You got anything else? Because this idea is bunk...