CEOExpress Blogger Private Label
 CEOExpress Home

 Total visits to this poll: 16516

This icon appears on your homepage
when there are new posts.

      Search Messages:           
AllThis Forum

In what area should the government do the most to protect us from ourselves?

All areas equally
Food safety and health
Products we buy - electronics, cars, etc.
Finances and banking
None at all
Something else - What?

Forum View Preference: Basic | AdvancedOpen Forums/Previous Polls | Suggest a Poll
Return to Today's Poll

Sort By Newest Sort By Newest 1-10 of 519 11-20 >>  Last >

1. Patricia Pomerleau CEOExpressSelect Member
     Forum Moderator
     (12/11/2017 11:54:15 AM)
     Message ID #295047

View All Related Messages

We've all unpacked an appliance or food product or something that needs to stay dry while in transit and storage. Often the item is full of silica gel packs that absorb moisture and are meant to be discarded upon opening.

But the little packets have warnings printed on them: 'DO NOT EAT' as if we would even contemplate popping one in our mouth. What's up with that? Do we really need to be told?

The same could be said for all the other product warnings that beg common sense. How much protection do we need from ourselves?

What about the unseen hazards of life? Most of us who have traveled abroad or eaten at a food truck rodeo realize U.S. food safety is among the best in the world. Clearly, that protection excels in some areas and one would think is over the top in others.

Do we need 'Trigger Warnings' in university classrooms so students can decide if they want to hear something potentially unpleasant? How about warnings of 'Graphic Content' before a news story airs?

Is it possible to protect us from ourselves while, at the same time, assuming the general public has a little common sense?

    Should the legal system limit frivolous lawsuits so many of these protections will be unnecessary?

    Do all the warnings make us more sensitive and unable to deal with life's unpleasantness when it does occur?

    If you could draw the line, where would you put common sense vs. necessary protection?

Editor's Note:
Comments Policy — We welcome comments, posts, and informed debate from a wide range of perspectives. Personal attacks, insulting/ vulgar posts, or repetitious/ false tirades have no place and can result in moderation or banning.
Civility — Clear-minded criticism is welcome, but play the ball and not the person. This includes speculation about motives or what ‘sort of person’ someone is. Civility, gentle humor, and staying on topic are superior debating tools.
Relevance — Please maintain focus on the topic at hand. Do not attempt to solve big problems in a single comment or to offer as fact what simply are opinions.
Ponder before you post — It’s bad form to dominate a discussion either by multiple posts in a row or too many posts in a given forum.

Message edited by user at 12/11/2017 11:55:25 AM

2. Noel Meyer
     (12/18/2017 3:39:34 AM)
     Message ID #295329

This message is in response to Patricia Pomerleau ( message id #295047 )  View All Related Messages

In what area should the government do the most to protect us from ourselves?

1. To put the director of the EPA who hates and is suing the EPA is not protecting the environment. The government of Trump and the wealthy is not protecting "WE the PEOPLE" from the greed of corporations.

2. "You can't fix stupid". Legislation protecting us is like trying to legislate morality - it don't work and it irritates conservatives.

3. Is it possible to protect us from ourselves while, at the same time, assuming the general public has a little common sense?

"NO". See #2 above. You can't fix stupid nor can you keep scammers from 'playing the game' finding new ways to push the legal liability limits of juries.

"Common Sense"

a. I respect Sen. McCain. But Brain Cancer? Old age? and the other aged and ill political figures like brain challenged Trump - who is protecting us from these people?

b. Legislation protects the rich from the poor and unwashed

Legislation makes issues where no issues exist like the infamous 'Bathroom Bills'

Legislation is on the books that can never be enforced due to lack of funding to implement it.

Legislation/regulation is being ignored, executive ordered to be dismissed by Trump allowing our national monuments to be sold to private developers and protections from toxins to poison our environment

Legislation is being created to obfuscate behavior such as background checks when the issue is mental illness and general fitness (training - its common sense)to own firearms.

MANDATORY MINIMUMS were created (so were "HATE CRIMES") to ensure the safety of the public only to show the absurdity of 'one size fits all occasions'.

Once upon a time, America's government TRUSTED the American people --
today Americans mistrust their government and that government fears its people so for the mere appearance of doing something, the government creates laws that do nothing, protect no one but allow the government to control more and more of the private, daily actions of the people.

3. D James
     (12/18/2017 7:27:12 AM)
     Message ID #295330

View All Related Messages

4. Noel Meyer
     (12/18/2017 9:41:17 AM)
     Message ID #295331

View All Related Messages
In what area should the government do the most to protect us from ourselves?

1. I am surprised the conservatives are not posting in large #'s that Government is here to protect the people from enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC.

2. I am amazed that even Conservatives would accept that the Government is protecting us from ourselves when:

a. Handgun violence(i.e. Chicago), domestic terrorism (i.e. radical extremist groups like White Surpremists, Nazis) have the support of Trump and Sessions

b. When Americans in Puerto Rico have to sit and wait for hurricane relief while America rebuilds Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the globe.

3. I'm anxiously waiting to see how self-proclaimed "liberals" aren't submitting laundry lists of things they are expecting the government to regulate.

With $20 Trillion in DEBT, a divided nation, and racial and class hatred and warfare approaching, I only wish that the government could protect us from ourselves.

5. D Robb
     (12/18/2017 10:23:48 AM)
     Message ID #295332

This message is in response to Patricia Pomerleau ( message id #295047 )  View All Related Messages

Patricia, I don’t think it is the government that has companies putting warnings on coffee that it is hot, that you shouldn’t put plastic bags over your head, or eat the little packets. It is our litigious society. The problem does not exist in those European countries that have the Napoleonic Code as the basis for their laws. Example, if a kid climbs a 3 meter high construction fence then climbs up a scaffold and falls to his death the parents cannot sue. Similarly, parents cannot sue if their 5-year old wanders into the street and is hit by a car. (The car owner can, if damage is done to his vehicle.)
Those that don’t want to be protected from polluted air, polluted water, unsafe products, financial scams, etc., are encouraged to move to the wilderness area of Idaho and go off the net. An added benefit is they’d probably be happy with their white supremacist terrorist neighbors.

6. levi malone
     (12/18/2017 10:26:18 AM)
     Message ID #295333

View All Related Messages
Every action from government comes with an implied threat of force.
It would pay to remember that.

7. Scott Walker
     (12/18/2017 10:30:27 AM)
     Message ID #295334

This message is in response to D James ( message id #295330 )  View All Related Messages

D James,
Very good answer, none or nothing, time for the government to back off and adhere to our Constitutional rights!!

8. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/18/2017 11:24:30 AM)
     Message ID #295335

View All Related Messages
And yet again I'm relegated to my Std Reply: "Something Else". sigh ...

"DO NOT EAT"; 'Trigger Warnings' such as "Graphic Content" etc ad infinitum ...

That's what you get, and perhaps what you deserve, when you opt for a nanny-state such as we have nowadays. It comes part-n-parcel w/ "Political Correctness" along w/ the proliferation of a lawsuit-happy litigious society.

Drop the Hammer on "Political Correctness" and start locking up those who are litigously inclined (just for the hell of it) as opposed to when it's truly warranted and you'll get a whole lot fewer warnings and a whole lot more common sense in society once again.

How's that gonna happen???? Well, for starters by forcing society to grow up and become responsible for itself (on an individual basis). It calls for the re-introduction of common sense and would help the world become a far better place than it is now.

Yeah, perhaps the accident rate might bubble for a short time but after you winnow the chaff (those who would never acquire any common sense even if god gave it to them) society would become a far more responsible lot and I call that a good thing.

9. Robert Campbell
     (12/18/2017 1:53:16 PM)
     Message ID #295336

View All Related Messages
Banish Republicans. Every time Republicans get power they damage our economy, our world standing and our society as a whole. I am convinced they do not believe in the US as one country. They see the US as 350 million individuals with no relationship or responsibility for each other. They obviously don't believe in democracy. Believers in democratic principles make it easier to vote, not harder. Believers in democracy don't have a Hastert Rule which demands that no Democrats be involved in writing or influencing the writing of bills and no bill goes to the floor unless it's passage is predetermined by only Republican votes. Believers in democracy don't announce in the first month of a new President's term their number one priority being to obstruct every effort from that President to try to to limit him (or her) to one term. And believers in democracy would not obstruct a record setting number of judicial appointments in order to infect th entire system with Republican hacks who have never seen the inside of a court room. Nor would any self-respecting believer in democracy refuse to confirm a Supreme Court they themselves said they would. Worse still, they have no shame about any of this. If you want to protect America from its worst enemy, banish Republicans.

10. Domenick Aulozzi CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/18/2017 2:20:43 PM)
     Message ID #295337

This message is in response to Robert Campbell ( message id #295336 )  View All Related Messages

Merry Christmas Robert!
  1-10 of 519 11-20 >>  Last >