or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Suck it, haters.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Suck it, haters. - Page 3

post #81 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yeah, it really is. And O'Connor was by far not the most liberal USSC justice out there. By far.

Non-sequitur. I'm talking about your insistence that the courts should not be making legal decisions based on law. She was talking about expanding the scope of the law in a way that should be completely acceptable. You're talking about not letting the courts decide the constitutionality of laws at all. That's their fucking job.
Quote:
Both notions are completely counter to how our system was set up. There are countless examples of liberal judges rewriting the law (and even the Constitution) to suit their ideology. The best example is Roe. v. Wade, but there are others. Consider the the FSSC on the Bush v. Gore decision. There was clear law on the books about when recounts had to be finished. They ignored it and ordered another recount. The CA gay marriage amendment is no different. There is nothing that prevents a state from amending its constitution on that issue. The 9th circuit simply didn't like it.

Just because you don't agree with those decisions doesn't make them invalid. In the legal community, you know people who have been to law school and know what the fuck they're talking about, those decisions are respected by all but the most biased conservatives.
post #82 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

An activist court is a court that uses valid legal arguments to decide something in a way that you disagree with.

I'm pretty sure you were just hating on someone pretty badly in another thread for telling you what you think. Hypocritical much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Non-sequitur. I'm talking about your insistence that the courts should not be making legal decisions based on law. She was talking about expanding the scope of the law in a way that should be completely acceptable. You're talking about not letting the courts decide the constitutionality of laws at all. That's their fucking job.

SDW and most conservatives understand that no law can be hyperational. It is impossible to put into print all hypotheticals that a law might end up covering. The courts are doing their jobs when they are asked to interpret a law absent the actual language of the law covering a hypothetical. This is very different than when you invent entirely new definitions for words or new scenarios that the language of the law clearly excluded. No court for example decided that just because men could vote, that men also means women. We required an amendment for that as an example because prior judges would never had said that man simply means and thus includes woman as well.

Quote:
Just because you don't agree with those decisions doesn't make them invalid. In the legal community, you know people who have been to law school and know what the fuck they're talking about, those decisions are respected by all but the most biased conservatives.

Nonsense, much of what conservatives disagree about today took place with decisions from the new deal when FDR was threatening the Supreme Court by threatening to both expand and stack it. You clearly are just talking out your ass again and making stuff up. All manners of influencing and threatening the courts have come from liberals whether it was FDR stacking it or the Democrats in the Senate "Borking" the previously uncontroversial nomination process for the court.

Well as I said, while I support gay marriage, I do not support telling states they cannot amend their Constitutions and while I'm quite sure this matter would have gone by the wayside with some passage of time, forcing it down people's throats is creating a backlash and more harm than good.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #83 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Non-sequitur. I'm talking about your insistence that the courts should not be making legal decisions based on law. She was talking about expanding the scope of the law in a way that should be completely acceptable. You're talking about not letting the courts decide the constitutionality of laws at all. That's their fucking job.

No, that is not my position at all. They should be deciding the constitutionality of laws...that is their job. However, what has happened is that the courts have invented constitutional rights to suit their own beliefs.

Quote:
She was talking about expanding the scope of the law in a way that should be completely acceptable.

No, it should not be. The job of the USSC is to interpret the U.S. Constitution and conduct judicial review accordingly. Period.

Quote:

Just because you don't agree with those decisions doesn't make them invalid. In the legal community, you know people who have been to law school and know what the fuck they're talking about, those decisions are respected by all but the most biased conservatives.

Ha. I don't respect them because they are decided on extra-Constutional and extra-legal grounds. The Bush v. Gore decision (in Florida) was a clear example of a court deciding a case on their belief that "every vote should count." The law was crystal clear. They set aside the deadline because they thought it was right. Ditto on Roe. The Constitution didn't limit the power of states to restrict abortion, so they invented an implied right of privacy to cover it.

By the way, my brother is an attorney, as is a close friend of mine. That means I fully understand that such decisions are more complicated than our discussion, and that there is going to be disagreement at the outcome. That, in fact, is what the legal field is all about.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #84 of 202
Thread Starter 
HA! A federal judge, appointed by George W. Bush, has ruled DOMA (Defense of Bigotry Act) unconstitutional!

Suck. It. You hating sons of bitches.

Quote:
White's ruling noted that tradition was used to defend bans on interracial marriage, and said congressional spending power could not be used to single out a vulnerable minority. White also said excluding same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage "does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriage."

Also...

Quote:
He also said gays and lesbians, because of historical persecution continuing political vulnerability, are entitled to the same legal protections against discriminatory laws as racial minorities.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #85 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

HA! A federal judge, appointed by George W. Bush, has ruled DOMA (Defense of Bigotry Act) unconstitutional!

I love this line:

Quote:
"The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority on a minority cannot provide a justification."


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Suck. It. You hating sons of bitches.

Like Bill Clinton...

Quote:
The law, signed by President Bill Clinton


Anyway...with any luck this will be the beginning of the end of the state's involvement in private relationships.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #86 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Anyway...with any luck this will be the beginning of the end of the state's involvement in private relationships.

Now THAT is change I can believe in.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #87 of 202
Thread Starter 
Bill Clinton admitted that his views on gay marriage have changed. That's a good thing. He was once a hater, but no longer. Many of you are still currently haters. You, too, can change your mind.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #88 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Many of you are still currently haters.

Like who?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #89 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Like who?

Yes, BR...who? We're now back to anyone that opposes or even has concerns about gay marriage on ANY grounds being a "hater.". Liberal Moral Superiorty, engage! You know what...I'm going to turn the tables here. Consider this statement:

Anyone who opposes tax relief for all is a horrible, hateful person who supports stealing, and hurting the poor.

Now, how do I support that statement? If I was a liberal, I wouldn't have to! I'm right because I'm right because I'm right. Suck it, Haters!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #90 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, BR...who? We're now back to anyone that opposes or even has concerns about gay marriage on ANY grounds being a "hater.". Liberal Moral Superiorty, engage! You know what...I'm going to turn the tables here. Consider this statement:

Anyone who opposes tax relief for all is a horrible, hateful person who supports stealing, and hurting the poor.

Now, how do I support that statement? If I was a liberal, I wouldn't have to! I'm right because I'm right because I'm right. Suck it, Haters!

You're starting to learn.

The truth is, Liberals don't use this kind of thing very often, but Conservatives use it ALL THE TIME.

"Iran is dangerous! Anyone who doesn't recognize that is an idiot!"
"Muslims want to destroy the West, literally! There's a HUGE global movement! Anyone who doesn't see that is blind!"
"God says homosexuality is an abomination! Anyone with any other interpretation of the Bible hates Christians!"
"Abortion is murder! Anyone who disagrees is nonhuman!"
"Believers of Keynesian theory are morons who don't understand real economics!"

And then there's the constant mocking and the name calling...

Loony Liberals! (For anyone who believes in environmental protection, social policy or freedom from religious doctrine.)
Socialist! (For anyone who believes in a safety net.)
Authoritarian! (For anyone who believes in reasonable regulation.)
Anti-Semite! (For anyone who thinks Israel is treating the Palestinians like shit.)

So don't YOU fucking tell ME that Liberals are the only ones who are elitist!
post #91 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"Believers of Keynesian theory are morons who don't understand real economics!"

Well, that one is true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Authoritarian! (For anyone who believes in reasonable regulation.)

Straw man.

You are authoritarian when you want to force others to do what you think they should do as you've clearly indicated you want to do.

You are a coward when you won't admit that you want to do this when you so obviously do.

You are also an authoritarian when you claim the right to declare the terms of debate.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #92 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well, that one is true.

Of course it is.
See what I mean? Forget all the Nobel prizes, forget all the textbooks on the subject and university courses and policies put in practice and working well... None of those people understand economics at all.

No, Libertarians aren't elitist at all!
Quote:
Straw man.

You are authoritarian when you want to force others to do what you think they should do as you've clearly indicated you want to do.

You are a coward when you won't admit that you want to do this when you so obviously do.

You are also an authoritarian when you claim the right to declare the terms of debate.

Do you believe any laws are reasonable? Laws against murder? Laws that you can't dump nuclear waste in the Antarctic? Traffic laws?

If so then I guess you're authoritarian!!!

So if we're all authoritarian, why is it a label of insult?
post #93 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course it is.
See what I mean? Forget all the Nobel prizes, forget all the textbooks on the subject and university courses and policies put in practice and working well... None of those people understand economics at all.

No, Libertarians aren't elitist at all!

Well I'm not sure the Nobel Prize is necessarily the best barometer here.

Look, do some study on this. Keynesianism is bullshit. It has never worked.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Do you believe any laws are reasonable? Laws against murder? Laws that you can't dump nuclear waste in the Antarctic? Traffic laws?

Of course. Don't be ridiculous. The first two you mention are laws having to do with basic rights of life, liberty and property. I've been very consistent in stating these as the foundation. The third...well first, I think the roads should be private. Then, I believe that if you freely chose to use someone's roads you agree to be bound by the terms of their use...which would be "rules of the road." This is no different from saying there are rules when you walk into a restaurant or movie theater.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If so then I guess you're authoritarian!!!

So if we're all authoritarian, why is it a label of insult?

Well there's a difference.

Since the state is unique in that it is the only institution in society that has a monopoly on the use of force and violence. As such, I believe this power should be limited to protecting each person's basic, natural rights of life, liberty and property.

Therefore the laws I support are those that protect every person's basic, natural rights of life, liberty and property.

This is not authoritarian.

You, however, wish to use the states power of force to actually violate those rights when you think someone must be forced to pay for something you think they should pay for or to force someone to do something you think they should do or forcibly stop someone from doing something you don't think they should do even it isn't a violation of another person's rights.

Do you see the difference here?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #94 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Look, do some study on this. Keynesianism is bullshit. It has never worked.

Millions of respected economists disagree with you completely. See what I mean about elitism?

Quote:
Since the state is unique in that it is the only institution in society that has a monopoly on the use of force and violence.

Really? You've never seen private security guards with firearms? You've never seen a dog in a yard, for God's sake?
Quote:
As such, I believe this power should be limited to protecting each person's basic, natural rights of life, liberty and property.

So we shouldn't have laws against overfishing, for instance?
Quote:
Therefore the laws I support are those that protect every person's basic, natural rights of life, liberty and property.

Only directly, or does indirectly count?
Quote:
This is not authoritarian.

By your definition, it is.
Quote:
You are authoritarian when you want to force others to do what you think they should do...

...Like when you want people to keep quiet in the theater while a movie is playing but they want to give their friend a running commentary? You're authoritarian!
Quote:
You, however, wish to use the states power of force to actually violate those rights when you think someone must be forced to pay for something you think they should pay for or to force someone to do something you think they should do or forcibly stop someone from doing something you don't think they should do even it isn't a violation of another person's rights.

Yes, that's called 'law'.
Quote:
Do you see the difference here?

Sure. I believe in government and regulation, and you believe in anarchy except under the most obvious direct situation. Indirect? Fuhgeddaboudit!
post #95 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Millions of respected economists disagree with you completely.

Millions?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Really? You've never seen private security guards with firearms? You've never seen a dog in a yard, for God's sake?

Oh dear. You don't actually see the difference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Only directly, or does indirectly count?

You'll have to give specific examples.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

...Like when you want people to keep quiet in the theater while a movie is playing but they want to give their friend a running commentary? You're authoritarian!

Not at all. :roll eyes:


Why can't just admit that you prefer to use force to make people do what you think they should do?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #96 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Millions?

How many trained or practicing economists do you think there are in a world of 7 billion people? I think you'll find that the majority actually believe that Keynesian theory is a respected and sound theory.
Quote:
Oh dear. You don't actually see the difference.

On the contrary, apparently it's you who don't see the similarity. It's a shame, really, but not surprising.
Quote:
You'll have to give specific examples.

If a restaurant is not regulated, and they decide to serve the leftover pork from last week, before market forces have the chance to react, someone may be deprived of their right to life. Therefore restaurant hygiene regulation is a valid law.
Quote:
Not at all. :roll eyes:

Of course not.
Quote:
Why can't just admit that you prefer to use force to make people do what you think they should do?

Again, that's the definition of law.
post #97 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You're starting to learn.

The truth is, Liberals don't use this kind of thing very often, but Conservatives use it ALL THE TIME.

"Iran is dangerous! Anyone who doesn't recognize that is an idiot!"
"Muslims want to destroy the West, literally! There's a HUGE global movement! Anyone who doesn't see that is blind!"
"God says homosexuality is an abomination! Anyone with any other interpretation of the Bible hates Christians!"
"Abortion is murder! Anyone who disagrees is nonhuman!"
"Believers of Keynesian theory are morons who don't understand real economics!"

And then there's the constant mocking and the name calling...

Loony Liberals! (For anyone who believes in environmental protection, social policy or freedom from religious doctrine.)
Socialist! (For anyone who believes in a safety net.)
Authoritarian! (For anyone who believes in reasonable regulation.)
Anti-Semite! (For anyone who thinks Israel is treating the Palestinians like shit.)

So don't YOU fucking tell ME that Liberals are the only ones who are elitist!

Right on the money!

The silence that accompanies embarrassment followed the above comment...
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #98 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You're starting to learn.

The truth is, Liberals don't use this kind of thing very often, but Conservatives use it ALL THE TIME.

"Iran is dangerous! Anyone who doesn't recognize that is an idiot!"

That's not moral superiority. It's calling someone out on denial of obvious facts.

Quote:

"Muslims want to destroy the West, literally! There's a HUGE global movement! Anyone who doesn't see that is blind!"

That's not moral superiority. It's calling someone out on denial of obvious facts.

Quote:
"God says homosexuality is an abomination! Anyone with any other interpretation of the Bible hates Christians!"

I'm not aware of anyone that has claimed that last part.

Quote:
"Abortion is murder! Anyone who disagrees is nonhuman!"

Again, an extreme position. And it's not moral superiority...it's just extreme.

Quote:
"Believers of Keynesian theory are morons who don't understand real economics!"

Again, calling someone out on denial of obvious outcomes is not inherent moral superiority.

Quote:

And then there's the constant mocking and the name calling...

Loony Liberals! (For anyone who believes in environmental protection, social policy or freedom from religious doctrine.)
Socialist! (For anyone who believes in a safety net.)
Authoritarian! (For anyone who believes in reasonable regulation.)
Anti-Semite! (For anyone who thinks Israel is treating the Palestinians like shit.)

So don't YOU fucking tell ME that Liberals are the only ones who are elitist!

You don't get it. I'm talking about claiming the moral high ground on every position, from gay rights to taxes to national security. To be fair, you display behavior less often and less intensely than does BR, among others.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #99 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's not moral superiority. It's calling someone out on denial of obvious facts.

That's not moral superiority. It's calling someone out on denial of obvious facts.

I'm not aware of anyone that has claimed that last part.

Again, an extreme position. And it's not moral superiority...it's just extreme.

Again, calling someone out on denial of obvious outcomes is not inherent moral superiority.

You don't get it. I'm talking about claiming the moral high ground on every position, from gay rights to taxes to national security. To be fair, you display behavior less often and less intensely than does BR, among others.

Point, set, match. Double down on your conservative elitism, that's the ticket.
post #100 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Point, set, match. Double down on your conservative elitism, that's the ticket.

We're talking about taking MORAL stances here, and denouncing those who disagree. Understanding the threat posed by Iran is not a moral position, nor are several of the others you mentioned.

An example of a position based on a moral stance would be: "Gay marriage should be legal. Anyone who opposes it is a hater." Another one would be: "Iran is a sovereign nation. They have a right to pursue nuclear weapons if they choose. Anyone who disagrees doesn't believe in national sovereignty, or is a war monger."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #101 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We're talking about taking MORAL stances here...

Oh, I see. You've lost the argument and now you're moving the goalposts. But you didn't really, did you. Let's stick to the big ones then, shall we? Are you honestly saying the Christians calling abortion murder aren't taking an elitist moral stance and denouncing those who disagree? Are you honestly saying the Christians against gay marriage, screaming at every breath that marriage is between one man an one woman aren't being elitist? Riiiight.
post #102 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oh, I see. You've lost the argument and now you're moving the goalposts. But you didn't really, did you.

I've been talking about moral stances all along. WTF are you saying?

Quote:
Let's stick to the big ones then, shall we? Are you honestly saying the Christians calling abortion murder aren't taking an elitist moral stance and denouncing those who disagree?

If they are doing both and refusing to engage in a logical defense of their position, yes...they are. If they simply have strong moral beliefs on the issue, that's fine.

Quote:

Are you honestly saying the Christians against gay marriage, screaming at every breath that marriage is between one man an one woman aren't being elitist? Riiiight.

That really depends. If their argument is based on their on private moral and religious beliefs (coupled with a refusal to discuss the legal and social implications), then yes. Though, I don't know that "elitist" really applies, because these are not typically people in positions of power and influence. It's more applicable to media figures, celebrities, politicians, etc. In any case, it's not moral elitism when one stands up for that which he believes.

For example, I happen to believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. However, me advocating that as law has nothing little or nothing to do with my religious and moral beliefs.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #103 of 202
Thread Starter 
Maryland passes marriage equality.

Delaware governor says that marriage equality is inevitable.

The march of progress continues. The racist, sexist, and homophobic bigots continue to double down and further cement their ignominious place in history.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #104 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Maryland passes marriage equality.

Congratulations to Maryland for doing it the right way.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #105 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The racist, sexist, and homophobic bigots continue to double down and further cement their ignominious place in history.

Who are they?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #106 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Who are they?

The people who claim, "That's the way it's always been -- you can't change the definition!" or the people who claim, "That's what the Bible says!" without regard for (or capability to understand) what's right and wrong. Cue SDW saying I'm being morally elitist. I don't care.
post #107 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Maryland passes marriage equality.

Delaware governor says that marriage equality is inevitable.

The march of progress continues. The racist, sexist, and homophobic bigots continue to double down and further cement their ignominious place in history.

Yeah, because all opponents of gay marriage are racist, sexist, homophobic bigots. It's moral elitism once again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The people who claim, "That's the way it's always been -- you can't change the definition!" or the people who claim, "That's what the Bible says!" without regard for (or capability to understand) what's right and wrong. Cue SDW saying I'm being morally elitist. I don't care.

Actually, I don't think you are being morally elitist in this post. We simply disagree. I believe there are serious problems with changing the definition of marriage. One of the biggest ones is it leaves no moral or legal grounds for preventing future changes, ones that will destroy the institution itself. Changing the definition to include gays means that almost any group will have the moral (and perhaps legal) grounds to argue for their "right" to marry...particularly in regard to marrying more than one person.

As for those that argue on religious grounds, they are entitled to their own beliefs and practices. Obviously the law cannot be based on those beliefs.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #108 of 202
Thread Starter 
Someone agrees with Rick Santorum's ridiculous positions more than he would like to lead on. This slippery slope is nonsensical. The same was said for interracial marriage 40 years ago.

What groups will demand their "right" to marry and how would they destroy the institution? You make such an assertion. You better back it up with some specific evidence.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #109 of 202
Like I said, some people lack the inherent ability to understand what's right and wrong. If you can use a slippery slope argument in this case then you're an example.
post #110 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Like I said, some people lack the inherent ability to understand what's right and wrong. If you can use a slippery slope argument in this case then you're an example.

Oh, the irony. I still can't get you to explain to me exactly why stealing is wrong unless it's done by a group of individuals calling themselves a government.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #111 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Oh, the irony. I still can't get you to explain to me exactly why stealing is wrong unless it's done by a group of individuals calling themselves a government.

It's not stealing. It's a business transaction. By using the roads, the education system, the rail, the sea ports, the military defense of our country, access to the emergency safety net 'just in case', even if you never end up using it, you have entered into a contract to pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes then it's you who are stealing those services from the government.

You will claim you never agreed to such a contract. Your parents did, you idiot. The minute they decided to get you a social security number when you were born, they agreed to the contract. They could have opted out by leaving the country when you were born and raising you somewhere else, and never applying for your US citizenship. You are bound to the contract now. Live with it. Things could be worse. Still don't like it? Blame your parents. What about your kids? I assume you decided not to bind them to this contract, right? Oh... Shit. I guess you forgot to do them this kindness.

That's why it's not theft. Now ignore reality some more and claim it's theft again in five minutes as if this conversation never took place.
post #112 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's not stealing. It's a business transaction. By using the roads, the education system, the rail, the sea ports, the military defense of our country, access to the emergency safety net 'just in case', even if you never end up using it, you have entered into a contract to pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes then it's you who are stealing those services from the government.

You will claim you never agreed to such a contract. Your parents did, you idiot. The minute they decided to get you a social security number when you were born, they agreed to the contract. They could have opted out by leaving the country when you were born and raising you somewhere else, and never applying for your US citizenship. You are bound to the contract now. Live with it. Things could be worse. Still don't like it? Blame your parents. What about your kids? I assume you decided not to bind them to this contract, right? Oh... Shit. I guess you forgot to do them this kindness.

That's why it's not theft. Now ignore reality some more and claim it's theft again in five minutes as if this conversation never took place.

How come 50% of the people involved with this social compact don't owe anything towards it?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #113 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

How come 50% of the people involved with this social compact don't owe anything towards it?

That's part of the contract. Got a problem with that?

How come someone accused of a crime can get free legal representation?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S FAIR AND RIGHT.

And keep in mind it's not that those 50% don't owe anything. It's that they don't have to pay until they can afford it. Seems fair in the context of humanity and what's right and wrong.
post #114 of 202
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That's part of the contract. Got a problem with that?

How come someone accused of a crime can get free legal representation?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S FAIR AND RIGHT.

And keep in mind it's not that those 50% don't owe anything. It's that they don't have to pay until they can afford it. Seems fair in the context of humanity and what's right and wrong.

And the idea that 50% pay no taxes is ludicrous, too. Sales tax, payroll tax, medicare tax, property tax, cell phone tax, airport tax, gas tax, et cetera. The taxes those bottom 50% pay hurt them way more than any taxes the 1% and 0.1% pay.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #115 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And the idea that 50% pay no taxes is ludicrous, too. Sales tax, payroll tax, medicare tax, property tax, cell phone tax, airport tax, gas tax, et cetera. The taxes those bottom 50% pay hurt them way more than any taxes the 1% and 0.1% pay.

What you say is true, but most of those are state taxes, so in the interest of the discussion of Federal taxation, I left this very valid point out.
post #116 of 202
Thread Starter 
Payroll, medicare, and TSA still apply. Those aren't chump change for the bottom 50%. I just really hate the dishonesty involved in calling the bottom 50% freeloaders.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #117 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That's part of the contract. Got a problem with that?

It isn't part of the contract. I do have a problem with it and that is why I think everyone ought to have some skin in the social contract game.

Quote:
How come someone accused of a crime can get free legal representation?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S FAIR AND RIGHT.

You are talking about the steps we will take before we deprive someone of their rights. That is very different. Saying you should pay a nickle on your soda to make sure we all have roads is far from saying you should be deprived of your rights and be locked up without representation.

Quote:
And keep in mind it's not that those 50% don't owe anything. It's that they don't have to pay until they can afford it. Seems fair in the context of humanity and what's right and wrong.

Given the debts we have, society cannot afford their lack of participation. Likewise people cannot properly help prioritize and seek out their interests when when they have no financial stake besides who gets the goodies.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #118 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It isn't part of the contract. I do have a problem with it and that is why I think everyone ought to have some skin in the social contract game.

It is part of the contract. If you want to change the contract use your vote. In my mind it's fair to give poor people a pass on things they can't afford, because the system benefits partially on their backs, and keeping them there.
Quote:
You are talking about the steps we will take before we deprive someone of their rights. That is very different. Saying you should pay a nickle on your soda to make sure we all have roads is far from saying you should be deprived of your rights and be locked up without representation.

I'm talking about the steps we take before we deprive someone of their basic living.
Quote:
Given the debts we have, society cannot afford their lack of participation. Likewise people cannot properly help prioritize and seek out their interests when when they have no financial stake besides who gets the goodies.

The debts we have are a result of the massive inequalities in society. Want to lower welfare payments? Start discouraging the billion dollar CEOs and start encouraging the $50,000 worker.
post #119 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Someone agrees with Rick Santorum's ridiculous positions more than he would like to lead on. This slippery slope is nonsensical. The same was said for interracial marriage 40 years ago.

The interracial marriage analogy is highly flawed. No one is able to choose his race. People ARE able to choose their sexual orientation, at least in some cases. People ARE able to choose whether or not to marry more than one person (or at least, they would be).

Quote:

What groups will demand their "right" to marry and how would they destroy the institution? You make such an assertion. You better back it up with some specific evidence.

Specifically? Polygamists. And what grounds would we prevent it...that their taxes would be complicated? As for the institution, it would be destroyed because the term "marriage" would become meaningless and diluted. It would become something else entirely. This is why I support civil unions. It's far less risky path and still entitles gays to equal rights of law and property.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #120 of 202
Thread Starter 
So, let's deny people their love and happiness because the taxes are complicated. Gotta love that reasoning. Hey look, SDW wants separate but equal, too! Yeah, interracial marriage is soooooooo different.

Judeochristians do not have a monopoly on the word marriage. It has meant many things to many different cultures for centuries and centuries. Hell, even your stupid bible explains 8 different kinds of marriages.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Suck it, haters.