The US doesn't have a federal law that requires content providers to have some minimum percentage of US-produced content. When you start talking about something substantially similar to providing television or radio shows, the US just has a lower legal overhead.
My Sirius satellite radio wasn't legal north of the border until they started piping in more CBC stuff.
"If the retailers bought that many units from Microsoft, they would be expected to sell to customers close to that number."
No, the retailer only thinks they'll sell that many. Whether they really do sell all their inventory remains to be seen (e. g. UMD movies).
A console sold to a consumer represents a part of the console's installed base that game publishers can then try to sell to. A console "sold" to a retailer is only a gauge of what retailers think will be popular, and really shouldn't count for more than any other sort of market speculation, professional or otherwise.
"the top university students in France are being groomed for lifetime jobs in civil service"
So how much of a stake of companies like Ubisoft is owned by the French government?
"witness the recent protests at attempted labor law reform"
You mean the "reforms" where they made it easier to fire somebody based on their age alone? About the only thing distinctly French I saw there was the fact that they protested instead of presenting legal challenges to a patently discriminatory law.
I've seen these arguments presented an awful lot on Slashdot, but haven't seen much to back it up, not even decent anecdotal evidence of the "I spent some time in France..." variety.
"A CNBC broadcast prompted GamesIndustry.biz to proclaim the 360 the winner, with some 2 Million in sales. The Wii followed closely behind with 1.8 Million, and the PS3 followed that number with 750,000."
Whether or not the 360 outsold the Wii, the 360 is notable because it had the potential to outsell the Wii, as there were no shortages. However many Wiis were sold, that's how many were put on the shelf, and if the 360 truly outsold the Wii, it seems it was more because of a lack of Wiis to buy than the comparative popularity of the two consoles.
And I'll add my own anecdote to the continuing trend: I saw my first PS3 in the wild this week, an unsold 60 GB model sitting on a shelf, unsold. It looks like Sony is still looking for a killer app.
"And what about those of us whose plans DO involve that, or something very similar?"
Then I'll point out that things didn't end altogether well for him. And if martyrdom is your aim, remember that not only was John Wilked Booth killed, but anybody associated with him was strung up, the related plots to kill the vice president and secretary of state failed miserably, the assassination was an excuse to set up more military tribunals rather than civillian trials, and the whole thing was followed by several decades of Reconstruction.
Yeah, the president was dead, but not exactly a net gain for Booth's cause.
"They can complain, but the separation of powers means that the executive branch has essentially infinite power to execute the laws according to its own interpretation."
Funny that you mention separation of powers. Touching on my earlier statement, the Post Office is an Article I (i. e. Congressional) power, not Article II (executive). I'm pretty sure that includes the Postal Inspectors that the Department of Justice would have to go through to actually execute those warrantless searches.
"The men who wrote the Bill of Rights had absolutely no idea what kind of threats would be facing this country, and as such, their perspective is simply no longer valid."
Unless you're 3/4 of the state legislatures, that's not your call to make.
Of course, if you really want to stick by your convictions that nobody outside of Manhattan has a stake in this, go bother Albany instead and leave DC for the rest of us.
"Mail is not your papers (it's the senders, until you accept it.)"
The new law in question seals First Class and Express Mail letters from inspection unless there's a warrant, a need to figure out who the recipient is, or they have the permission of the recipient.
"Mail is given to the post office to be delivered according to the rules, and it is those rules that he is changing."
They are not his rules to change. As far as I can tell, this is the first time Congress actually passed a law on sealed letters, but before that, mail was sealed by USPS regulations and judicial precedent. If anything, the language of the new law makes things more strict, since there's no mention of "exigent circumstances" in the new law.
"The keyword here is "reasonable". Assuming safe guards are in place, a search of the mail is reasonable."
This new law and over a century of judicial precedents have already decided what is "resonable." It's not his call any more, if it ever was.
"The president can declare martial law in which case due process is suspended."
The word "martial" appears nowhere in the federal constitution. The closest you'll get is a suspension of habeas corpus, which only Congress can do (at least, that's what the document says).
"All in all, this in itself is not a Bad Thing, if it is not abused."
You would have us trust the president not to abuse rules that he himself makes up?
"Except for when Americans first gained independence from England."
Try reading The Cousins Wars. The UK lost the war because they didn't have the heart to crush the rebellion. Contrast to the ability of an armed Confederacy to break away from the Union.
"Except when Israel became a recognized state."
Again, the British didn't have the stomach to deal with such minor trivialities only two years after WWII. They had India to worry about.
"Except how Iraqi insurgents are currently winning a war with no purpose."
The same Iraqi insurgents who weren't able to overthrow Sadam's tanks and sarin gas? Once again, this is an example of insurgents winning because the "oppressors" weren't oppressive enough; pop a nuke off in Baghdad (and any other hotspots that come to mind) and things would quiet down remarkably fast.
"Whether you can win a fight easily is not important either. The second amendment was right then and it is still right today."
Perhaps, but does anybody understand what it says? I seem to recall the amendment mentioning "the militia," which is the same group the constitution authorizes the president to call out to put down insurrections. Other than defending yourself from the acts of individuals, the Second Amendment seems to ensure the right of you, your friends and neighbors to be involved in putting down the rebellion you seem to be in favor of.
"Don't underestimate the importance of having arms as a deterrent against people acting against your wishes because they know what is best for you."
The militia exists so that people can put down insurgents like you without having to wait for the federal government. The militia exists as a law enforcement body of last resort, when regular law enforcement bodies just aren't enough. They fight for the law, not against it.
"Speaking from experience, with most laws, the first part you quoted may be the law in its basic form (i.e: general rule). The part I quoted may be the exception to the basic law. You see this type of thing in just about every code book (Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Traffic Code, Family Code, etc.). "
The law effectively takes what has been mere USPS policy from the Domestic Mail Manual (First Class and Express Mail sealed from inspection) and gives it the weight of federal law. Federal law-enforcement powers that may have been able to supercede such langauge when it is a part of internal policy will not be able to when the same language is used in federal law (e. g. the law has the potential to overturn judicial precedent from United States v. Van Leeuwen). What other intent could Congress possibly have had with the new law concerning sealed mail other than curtailing executive powers? If this is truly "nothing new," what was the point in Congress including it to begin with?
Especially when we have existing law that says:
Whoever, being a Postal Service officer or employee, unlawfully secretes, destroys, detains, delays, or opens any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail entrusted to him or which shall come into his possession, and which was intended to be conveyed by mail, or carried or delivered by any carrier or other employee of the Postal Service, or forwarded through or delivered from any post office or station thereof established by authority of the Postmaster General or the Postal Service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Which is interesting when the next section, on newspapers, uses the word "improperly" rather than "unlawfully," as now Congres has declared what is lawful (and, by omission, unlawful).
"Just because (1) or (a) forbids conduct, doesn't mean that there's not a (2) or (b) that permits conduct contrairy to (1) or (a) under certain circumstances."
Except that this new law itself is internally consistent: the exceptions are listed right in the same paragraph. Before December 20, the only things protecting the privacy of mail were Postal Service policy and judicial precedent; there was no "first section" in the United States Code for another section to amend.
"but at the same time complain about the 2nd Amendment and the general pro-gun attitudes of Republicans."
We're not anti-gun, we're just anti- the pro-gun people such as yourselves who constantly pop up with off-topic comments like these, evangelizing about what we "really should" care about. Really, unless your plans involve yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" while jumping off a balcony, how exactly would easy access to firearms prevent the Bush Administration from reading your mail?
"an armed public is the only way to have any level of resistance if a government becomes truly oppressive."
If a republic becomes "truly oppressive," it's already too late; there's little that easy access to firearms could accomplish other than make things bloodier. Rifles are meant to defend civilization, not to act as some sort of back-up plan if civilization fails.
"Yea, well, unarmed crowds really don't do so well against a M16 equipped military controlled by the government (need examples? see China, 1989)."
They're not limited to rifles. The example you cite famously involved tanks. They also have airplanes with bombs, artillery, and any number of mean and nasty ways to kill you without being anywhere near you. And a truly oppressive government, the bogey man you try to use, wouldn't just stop at killing the man who has an AK-47 in his hands, they'd also wipe out his family and several of his neighbors to use you as an example. The only recourse would be the ones that Islamist militants are trying to use against us now: throwing their own bodies into the gears of war in the hopes of getting enough dead bodies to jam up the machinery.
The Kurds had AK-47s. Sadam Hussein had Sarin. Guess who won?
"In his signing statement, he refers to "exigent circumstances" and "specifically authorized by law""
You're not the only one who can cut and paste. Here's the pertinent section of the new law in question (inserted into, rather than modifying or rewording, existing law):
The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. (...) No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.
No "exigent circumstances," no "ticking time-bomb," just "with a warrant," "to figure out the recipient," or "with the permission of the recipient." What is "specifically authorized by law" in this case doesn't include "exigent circumstances."
"referring to foreign intelligence in the latter comment."
That's all well and good, but note that the new law includes all mail "of domestic origin." This is all too similar to the wiretapping scandal, where existing law requires warrants to tap outbound international communications, but executive privilege somehow expanded into areas where it was specifically denied by law.
"If someone claims to have mailed a nasty toxic substance, or if there is probable cause to believe that something like that has occurred, then law enforcement/EMS better be there to take care of it."
Note the third exception. "We think this package mailed to you might be a bomb, do you mind if we open it?" It's as simple as that.
I love these politically correct fetish euphamisms. You've got the nerve to choke somebody else in the middle of sex, but you can't quite bring yourself to call it "choking?"
"The NSA and CIA can't stop psychotic nutjobs posting beheading videos on the web, what the hell makes a few addle-brained teachers think they can stop kids from posting to YouTube?"
Because the NSA and the CIA can't find their own asses with two free hands and a map? 9/11, anyone?
Great idea! That way we can have a lucrative plastic surgeon on every block while the break-even economics of emergency rooms can become a thing of the past!
"That still doesn't answer my question, you implied I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance and I said no such thing."
No, I pointed out the lack of a guarantee that you will always be paying for your own healthcare and would never use any state-funded medical resources between today and whenever you die. Where will you be financially 50 years from now?
"Right, I vote against taxes, income taxes, and some bonds that are from the federal government."
Such issues are never on the federal ballot, at least in the United States. Electors, representatives, senators. No constitutional amendments, no voter initiatives, no bonds.
This was less than two months ago, did you forget what was on your ballot already?
"The same applies turned around, A New Yorker fills up then drives to PA. As for more people go from PA the NY or it's the other way around I don't know but I bet it's pretty much balanced."
Emphasis mine. A true user fee system (as opposed to an excise) means verifiably paying for what you use (i. e. paying to board a bus or a subway), not "I guess it works out." You don't pay, you don't get to use it.
And really, "I bet it's pretty much balanced?" Thank you for making my point about the lack of fiscal responsibility among anti-tax voters.
"And the federal tax helps pay for many roads or highways, such as Sen Ted Steven's Bridge to nowhere at a cost of $315 million."
As I have repeated ad nauseam, I'm talking about state governments. And, again, ad nauseam, New York is a net contributor to federal coffers (which means, in case you missed out on economics 101, that the people of New York pay more to the federal government than the State of New York receives from Congress). The pet issues you have with the federal government, the ones you keep trying over and over to insert into this conversation, still do not apply.
Unless you have something new to say, I'm done here. I'm sure you're as tired of reading the same things over and over again as I am of typing them.
"Previous to the DoI the King owned our bodies and our possessions because we were subject to him."
You are unclear on the concept of serfdom. People were owned by the manor lord only indirectly, land was what the manor lord owned. Serfs, having no land of their own, no way to grow their own food or have any other means to support themselves without access to land, were legally bound to the land, to be bought and sold along with the land. "Rights come from property" means "If you have no property, you have no rights." No land meant no food, which meant no right to life. By granting you land to work and food to eat, the manor lord owned you, and this is exactly the same stance of "The state must therefore own the people they treat" that I'm seeing in way too many of the responses here.
"Essentially the DoI proclaimed that each human is born a sovereign individual either by Nature or by God and really bypasses any higher authority."
Having ownership over your own body implies that you can legitimately transfer ownership of your body to somebody else (i. e. indentured servitude). The Declaration of Independence listed (not "proclaimed") perpetual "self-evident truths," noting that one's rights to life and liberty were inalienable; they cannot be justly divested just as they cannot be justly taken. The only entity/process/whatever that can remove those rights from you is the one that granted them.
"If we don't own our own bodies, then we can't do whatever we want with them"
The only limits placed on you is the surrender of inalienable rights. State and federal constitutions represent the surrender of alienable rights by the people to their agents.
"That is the problem we are having now is that the government or 'nanny state' is trying to own our bodies for us so that they can tell us what we can and cannot consume."
Washington and New York stepped in here to better manage their limited healthcare resources. As republican governments, they have a duty to the people to secure for them their right to life, therefore some level of state healthcare is proper and just. However, for various reasons I've gone into ad nauseam elsewhere in this thread, state healthcare resources are limited and overburdened. What you do to yourself is between your and your conscious, but the state cannot allow you to voluntarily do to yourself something that will place you into an all-too-scarce hospital bed and jeopardize someone else's right to life.
Re:the Declaration of Independence and the Constit
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
"Purhaps you missed it but I did address states being involved with healthcare."
Then why did you decide to introduce nearly an entire paragraph on the federal constitution to the discussion to begin with?
"Yeah, you're antismoking period and will use whatever excuse to ban it."
I am against the mismanagement of my tax money. As I have stated before, I don't care what you do so long as you don't place an undue burden on our overtaxed healthcare resources. Get rid of the smokers, get rid of the things to smoke, or provide more hospital beds.
"Can you point to me where I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance?"
As has been noted before "should" and "can" are two different concepts.
"If I had had my way we never would have had this hugh, massive, national deficit. I was against the adventure in Iraq, and cutting taxes without cutting spending as well. Bush took the US from a budget surplus to the nation's largest deficit, and I voted for him neither tyme he ran for president."
I'm sorry, I thought we were still talking about state government. You're already on the record as voting against both taxes and bond issues. Many states had a bond on their ballots to pay for roadwork, but I know of none that had a ballot issue concerning state funding of the invasion of Iraq (likely because there is no such funding).
"It is a user fee, if you use fuel you pay."
Going back to the example I just used in the very paragraph you pasted from, if you buy gas in Pennsylvania, you've paid the "user fee" to drive on Pennsylvania roads. New York doesn't see a dime of it and, using a strict "user fee" interpretation, they would do well to set up roadblocks along the PA-NY border to ensure that the fees have been collected from people driving into NY using PA gasoline.
Additionally, if gasoline tax was a user fee, then the tax would increase for vehicles with higher mileage, as wear and tear on the road surface is independent of a particular vehicle's fuel efficiency. The user fee would be per mile, rather than per gallon.
Any connection between the consumption of gasoline and the maintenance required by roadways is tenuous at best, there is no effort made by state governments to ensure that all users are charged and only users are charged, it is nothing more than an excise levied in addition to the gasoline purchased. It is a tax.
Slashdot Mirror
The US doesn't have a federal law that requires content providers to have some minimum percentage of US-produced content. When you start talking about something substantially similar to providing television or radio shows, the US just has a lower legal overhead.
My Sirius satellite radio wasn't legal north of the border until they started piping in more CBC stuff.
"If the retailers bought that many units from Microsoft, they would be expected to sell to customers close to that number."
No, the retailer only thinks they'll sell that many. Whether they really do sell all their inventory remains to be seen (e. g. UMD movies).
A console sold to a consumer represents a part of the console's installed base that game publishers can then try to sell to. A console "sold" to a retailer is only a gauge of what retailers think will be popular, and really shouldn't count for more than any other sort of market speculation, professional or otherwise.
This is a PS3 story? Then why are you still using the PS2 controller as a logo? /sarcasm
"Of course, it is worth pointing out that given the recent change in Congress,"
Yeah, a whopping 5% of seats actually changed hands! Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!
95% of the people who voted this stuff into place to begin with are still there. Don't expect anything to change.
"analphabet"
The English word you're looking for is "illiterate."
Sorry, just took me a second or two to realize what you were trying to say.
"the top university students in France are being groomed for lifetime jobs in civil service"
So how much of a stake of companies like Ubisoft is owned by the French government?
"witness the recent protests at attempted labor law reform"
You mean the "reforms" where they made it easier to fire somebody based on their age alone? About the only thing distinctly French I saw there was the fact that they protested instead of presenting legal challenges to a patently discriminatory law.
I've seen these arguments presented an awful lot on Slashdot, but haven't seen much to back it up, not even decent anecdotal evidence of the "I spent some time in France..." variety.
"How many black hole discoveries do we need to announce before they no longer become news?"
Black Hole Found Inside New Jersey.
Considering the money being lost, I'd say "red."
E-Cup Expo.
"A CNBC broadcast prompted GamesIndustry.biz to proclaim the 360 the winner, with some 2 Million in sales. The Wii followed closely behind with 1.8 Million, and the PS3 followed that number with 750,000."
Whether or not the 360 outsold the Wii, the 360 is notable because it had the potential to outsell the Wii, as there were no shortages. However many Wiis were sold, that's how many were put on the shelf, and if the 360 truly outsold the Wii, it seems it was more because of a lack of Wiis to buy than the comparative popularity of the two consoles.
And I'll add my own anecdote to the continuing trend: I saw my first PS3 in the wild this week, an unsold 60 GB model sitting on a shelf, unsold. It looks like Sony is still looking for a killer app.
"And what about those of us whose plans DO involve that, or something very similar?"
Then I'll point out that things didn't end altogether well for him. And if martyrdom is your aim, remember that not only was John Wilked Booth killed, but anybody associated with him was strung up, the related plots to kill the vice president and secretary of state failed miserably, the assassination was an excuse to set up more military tribunals rather than civillian trials, and the whole thing was followed by several decades of Reconstruction.
Yeah, the president was dead, but not exactly a net gain for Booth's cause.
"They can complain, but the separation of powers means that the executive branch has essentially infinite power to execute the laws according to its own interpretation."
Funny that you mention separation of powers. Touching on my earlier statement, the Post Office is an Article I (i. e. Congressional) power, not Article II (executive). I'm pretty sure that includes the Postal Inspectors that the Department of Justice would have to go through to actually execute those warrantless searches.
"The men who wrote the Bill of Rights had absolutely no idea what kind of threats would be facing this country, and as such, their perspective is simply no longer valid."
Unless you're 3/4 of the state legislatures, that's not your call to make.
Of course, if you really want to stick by your convictions that nobody outside of Manhattan has a stake in this, go bother Albany instead and leave DC for the rest of us.
"Mail is not your papers (it's the senders, until you accept it.)"
The new law in question seals First Class and Express Mail letters from inspection unless there's a warrant, a need to figure out who the recipient is, or they have the permission of the recipient.
"Mail is given to the post office to be delivered according to the rules, and it is those rules that he is changing."
They are not his rules to change. As far as I can tell, this is the first time Congress actually passed a law on sealed letters, but before that, mail was sealed by USPS regulations and judicial precedent. If anything, the language of the new law makes things more strict, since there's no mention of "exigent circumstances" in the new law.
"The keyword here is "reasonable". Assuming safe guards are in place, a search of the mail is reasonable."
This new law and over a century of judicial precedents have already decided what is "resonable." It's not his call any more, if it ever was.
"The president can declare martial law in which case due process is suspended."
The word "martial" appears nowhere in the federal constitution. The closest you'll get is a suspension of habeas corpus, which only Congress can do (at least, that's what the document says).
"All in all, this in itself is not a Bad Thing, if it is not abused."
You would have us trust the president not to abuse rules that he himself makes up?
Never underestimate the bandwidth of DVDs sent Priority Mail.
"Except for when Americans first gained independence from England."
Try reading The Cousins Wars. The UK lost the war because they didn't have the heart to crush the rebellion. Contrast to the ability of an armed Confederacy to break away from the Union.
"Except when Israel became a recognized state."
Again, the British didn't have the stomach to deal with such minor trivialities only two years after WWII. They had India to worry about.
"Except how Iraqi insurgents are currently winning a war with no purpose."
The same Iraqi insurgents who weren't able to overthrow Sadam's tanks and sarin gas? Once again, this is an example of insurgents winning because the "oppressors" weren't oppressive enough; pop a nuke off in Baghdad (and any other hotspots that come to mind) and things would quiet down remarkably fast.
"Whether you can win a fight easily is not important either. The second amendment was right then and it is still right today."
Perhaps, but does anybody understand what it says? I seem to recall the amendment mentioning "the militia," which is the same group the constitution authorizes the president to call out to put down insurrections. Other than defending yourself from the acts of individuals, the Second Amendment seems to ensure the right of you, your friends and neighbors to be involved in putting down the rebellion you seem to be in favor of.
"Don't underestimate the importance of having arms as a deterrent against people acting against your wishes because they know what is best for you."
The militia exists so that people can put down insurgents like you without having to wait for the federal government. The militia exists as a law enforcement body of last resort, when regular law enforcement bodies just aren't enough. They fight for the law, not against it.
The law effectively takes what has been mere USPS policy from the Domestic Mail Manual (First Class and Express Mail sealed from inspection) and gives it the weight of federal law. Federal law-enforcement powers that may have been able to supercede such langauge when it is a part of internal policy will not be able to when the same language is used in federal law (e. g. the law has the potential to overturn judicial precedent from United States v. Van Leeuwen). What other intent could Congress possibly have had with the new law concerning sealed mail other than curtailing executive powers? If this is truly "nothing new," what was the point in Congress including it to begin with?
Especially when we have existing law that says: Which is interesting when the next section, on newspapers, uses the word "improperly" rather than "unlawfully," as now Congres has declared what is lawful (and, by omission, unlawful).
"Just because (1) or (a) forbids conduct, doesn't mean that there's not a (2) or (b) that permits conduct contrairy to (1) or (a) under certain circumstances."
Except that this new law itself is internally consistent: the exceptions are listed right in the same paragraph. Before December 20, the only things protecting the privacy of mail were Postal Service policy and judicial precedent; there was no "first section" in the United States Code for another section to amend.
"but at the same time complain about the 2nd Amendment and the general pro-gun attitudes of Republicans."
We're not anti-gun, we're just anti- the pro-gun people such as yourselves who constantly pop up with off-topic comments like these, evangelizing about what we "really should" care about. Really, unless your plans involve yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" while jumping off a balcony, how exactly would easy access to firearms prevent the Bush Administration from reading your mail?
"an armed public is the only way to have any level of resistance if a government becomes truly oppressive."
If a republic becomes "truly oppressive," it's already too late; there's little that easy access to firearms could accomplish other than make things bloodier. Rifles are meant to defend civilization, not to act as some sort of back-up plan if civilization fails.
"Yea, well, unarmed crowds really don't do so well against a M16 equipped military controlled by the government (need examples? see China, 1989)."
They're not limited to rifles. The example you cite famously involved tanks. They also have airplanes with bombs, artillery, and any number of mean and nasty ways to kill you without being anywhere near you. And a truly oppressive government, the bogey man you try to use, wouldn't just stop at killing the man who has an AK-47 in his hands, they'd also wipe out his family and several of his neighbors to use you as an example. The only recourse would be the ones that Islamist militants are trying to use against us now: throwing their own bodies into the gears of war in the hopes of getting enough dead bodies to jam up the machinery.
The Kurds had AK-47s. Sadam Hussein had Sarin. Guess who won?
... look forward to the pending constitutional crisis triggered when a Postal Inspector places an FBI agent under arrest.
You're not the only one who can cut and paste. Here's the pertinent section of the new law in question (inserted into, rather than modifying or rewording, existing law):No "exigent circumstances," no "ticking time-bomb," just "with a warrant," "to figure out the recipient," or "with the permission of the recipient." What is "specifically authorized by law" in this case doesn't include "exigent circumstances."
"referring to foreign intelligence in the latter comment."
That's all well and good, but note that the new law includes all mail "of domestic origin." This is all too similar to the wiretapping scandal, where existing law requires warrants to tap outbound international communications, but executive privilege somehow expanded into areas where it was specifically denied by law.
"If someone claims to have mailed a nasty toxic substance, or if there is probable cause to believe that something like that has occurred, then law enforcement/EMS better be there to take care of it."
Note the third exception. "We think this package mailed to you might be a bomb, do you mind if we open it?" It's as simple as that.
"a guy with a breathplay fetish"
I love these politically correct fetish euphamisms. You've got the nerve to choke somebody else in the middle of sex, but you can't quite bring yourself to call it "choking?"
"The NSA and CIA can't stop psychotic nutjobs posting beheading videos on the web, what the hell makes a few addle-brained teachers think they can stop kids from posting to YouTube?"
Because the NSA and the CIA can't find their own asses with two free hands and a map? 9/11, anyone?
"No, get rid of taxpayer financed healthcare."
Great idea! That way we can have a lucrative plastic surgeon on every block while the break-even economics of emergency rooms can become a thing of the past!
"That still doesn't answer my question, you implied I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance and I said no such thing."
No, I pointed out the lack of a guarantee that you will always be paying for your own healthcare and would never use any state-funded medical resources between today and whenever you die. Where will you be financially 50 years from now?
"Right, I vote against taxes, income taxes, and some bonds that are from the federal government."
Such issues are never on the federal ballot, at least in the United States. Electors, representatives, senators. No constitutional amendments, no voter initiatives, no bonds.
This was less than two months ago, did you forget what was on your ballot already?
"The same applies turned around, A New Yorker fills up then drives to PA. As for more people go from PA the NY or it's the other way around I don't know but I bet it's pretty much balanced."
Emphasis mine. A true user fee system (as opposed to an excise) means verifiably paying for what you use (i. e. paying to board a bus or a subway), not "I guess it works out." You don't pay, you don't get to use it.
And really, "I bet it's pretty much balanced?" Thank you for making my point about the lack of fiscal responsibility among anti-tax voters.
"And the federal tax helps pay for many roads or highways, such as Sen Ted Steven's Bridge to nowhere at a cost of $315 million."
As I have repeated ad nauseam, I'm talking about state governments. And, again, ad nauseam, New York is a net contributor to federal coffers (which means, in case you missed out on economics 101, that the people of New York pay more to the federal government than the State of New York receives from Congress). The pet issues you have with the federal government, the ones you keep trying over and over to insert into this conversation, still do not apply.
Unless you have something new to say, I'm done here. I'm sure you're as tired of reading the same things over and over again as I am of typing them.
"Previous to the DoI the King owned our bodies and our possessions because we were subject to him."
You are unclear on the concept of serfdom. People were owned by the manor lord only indirectly, land was what the manor lord owned. Serfs, having no land of their own, no way to grow their own food or have any other means to support themselves without access to land, were legally bound to the land, to be bought and sold along with the land. "Rights come from property" means "If you have no property, you have no rights." No land meant no food, which meant no right to life. By granting you land to work and food to eat, the manor lord owned you, and this is exactly the same stance of "The state must therefore own the people they treat" that I'm seeing in way too many of the responses here.
"Essentially the DoI proclaimed that each human is born a sovereign individual either by Nature or by God and really bypasses any higher authority."
Having ownership over your own body implies that you can legitimately transfer ownership of your body to somebody else (i. e. indentured servitude). The Declaration of Independence listed (not "proclaimed") perpetual "self-evident truths," noting that one's rights to life and liberty were inalienable; they cannot be justly divested just as they cannot be justly taken. The only entity/process/whatever that can remove those rights from you is the one that granted them.
"If we don't own our own bodies, then we can't do whatever we want with them"
The only limits placed on you is the surrender of inalienable rights. State and federal constitutions represent the surrender of alienable rights by the people to their agents.
"That is the problem we are having now is that the government or 'nanny state' is trying to own our bodies for us so that they can tell us what we can and cannot consume."
Washington and New York stepped in here to better manage their limited healthcare resources. As republican governments, they have a duty to the people to secure for them their right to life, therefore some level of state healthcare is proper and just. However, for various reasons I've gone into ad nauseam elsewhere in this thread, state healthcare resources are limited and overburdened. What you do to yourself is between your and your conscious, but the state cannot allow you to voluntarily do to yourself something that will place you into an all-too-scarce hospital bed and jeopardize someone else's right to life.
"Purhaps you missed it but I did address states being involved with healthcare."
Then why did you decide to introduce nearly an entire paragraph on the federal constitution to the discussion to begin with?
"Yeah, you're antismoking period and will use whatever excuse to ban it."
I am against the mismanagement of my tax money. As I have stated before, I don't care what you do so long as you don't place an undue burden on our overtaxed healthcare resources. Get rid of the smokers, get rid of the things to smoke, or provide more hospital beds.
"Can you point to me where I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance?"
As has been noted before "should" and "can" are two different concepts.
"If I had had my way we never would have had this hugh, massive, national deficit. I was against the adventure in Iraq, and cutting taxes without cutting spending as well. Bush took the US from a budget surplus to the nation's largest deficit, and I voted for him neither tyme he ran for president."
I'm sorry, I thought we were still talking about state government. You're already on the record as voting against both taxes and bond issues. Many states had a bond on their ballots to pay for roadwork, but I know of none that had a ballot issue concerning state funding of the invasion of Iraq (likely because there is no such funding).
"It is a user fee, if you use fuel you pay."
Going back to the example I just used in the very paragraph you pasted from, if you buy gas in Pennsylvania, you've paid the "user fee" to drive on Pennsylvania roads. New York doesn't see a dime of it and, using a strict "user fee" interpretation, they would do well to set up roadblocks along the PA-NY border to ensure that the fees have been collected from people driving into NY using PA gasoline.
Additionally, if gasoline tax was a user fee, then the tax would increase for vehicles with higher mileage, as wear and tear on the road surface is independent of a particular vehicle's fuel efficiency. The user fee would be per mile, rather than per gallon.
Any connection between the consumption of gasoline and the maintenance required by roadways is tenuous at best, there is no effort made by state governments to ensure that all users are charged and only users are charged, it is nothing more than an excise levied in addition to the gasoline purchased. It is a tax.