Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually see reality? The President is not a dictator, and if Congress, or a large enough minority in Congress decides to dig their heels in and shout "NO" like a bunch of spoiled children, there's not a lot he can do about it.
What (L)'s said on healthcare is that we should be able to buy health insurance from any and all health insurance companies in the COUNTRY, not just the STATE in which we work or reside.
Why? What happened to all that "States Rights" rhetoric you guys like to bring up for everything? Do states not have the right to regulate insurance within their borders? Or is this another "Do as I say, not as I do" thing that L's are famous for?
Again, you have provided no fucking context for any of your shit. If you actually read any of the shit you tried to research, you'd see that most of those have NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA. Take closing Gitmo. Did your "research", and by that, I mean reading the Romney talking points, inform you that he signed the executive order closing Gitmo the very first day he was in office? No, it probably didn't. How about the part where Congress, the guys who control the purse strings, refused to fund it? No, I'm guessing you didn't read that either. Pull your head out of your ass sometime, and you'd see that things are not as black and white as you make them seem.
Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
I like how 1) You take this completely out of context, and 2) you seem to imply that compromise, the thing in which we all get some of what we want and we make sure that things don't go too far to one side, is bad. It's assholes like you that are ruining this country, with this idea that "compromise" is somehow weak, and that we should just stand and shout "NO" like a bunch of spoiled brats until we get everything we want and the other guy gets nothing. Your idea of politics like that can go fuck itself in the ear.
Not everyone has the means to just up and move across the country. Perhaps people should think about that when they go all gung-ho over "states rights"
Again, read the sig, the 16th amendment does not authorise direct taxes upon individuals
Yes, it does. Your interpretation might think it doesn't, but your interpretation is trumped by the interpretation of those given the Constitutional Authority to interpret such things.
so you are of an opinion that if tomorrow the SCOTUS said that in fact the Moon is made of cheese and because of that you are now property of the Moon colony, who has ability to send you into open space without a space suit to mine the cheese from the moon, then it would be Constitutional?
Why would you think something so stupid? The SCOTUS very clearly has no expertise in lunar matters. However, they have dedicated their lives to the study of Constitutional Law. I would say their opinion carries a lot more weight than some idiot who thinks government is to blame for things it's not even involved in.
So you've got absolutely no room to bitch about anything, right? Because you were offered the chance to have your say, and you said, "I'll just go along with whatever anyone else says."
And I like how you try and use "statist" as some kind of derogatory term. It's so cute when people like you try to think.
No, he's pretty spot on. There is no fucking way that Ron Paul would support such a basic internet freedom as Net Neutrality. And without that, the rest of it goes out the window. What good is "internet freedom" if your ISP is equally "free" to limit your connection however they please?
There are very many things that should be run that way. The right of gays to marry, for instance, should be guaranteed throughout the country. I find it insanely laughable that people think it's ok for someone to have a right, then move a small amount, and now that right is taken away.
Exactly. When a employer does not see a union as the enemy, the union should reciprocate in kind. In essence, the rhetoric of "employers are evil" or "unions are evil" are more suitable to 3rd grade verbal fights.
I'll agree with that, however it has been shown that the employers were the ones to start the "seeing the other side as the enemy" bullshit, especially in the US. I really don't care about your 3rd world comparisons, as the US is not a 3rd world country.
Now, there is a lot to blame on the Big Three management for the way they mishandled overseas competition, but the AWU had a lot of blame on it, demanding perks that were no longer justifiable
Like multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses for executives? Why is it always the employees who get blamed for "unjustifiable perks", yet you never mention anything about executive compensation?
No, it is not because of government. It is because of the actions of the companies.
Your obsession with government as being the root of all evil blinds you to the evils committed by others, even to the point where you assign blame for their evils on an unrelated entity.
No, they don't. I don't give a shit what kind of 3rd world comparison you want to make; the US is NOT a 3rd world country, so comparing it to one makes you look like an ass.
Compare the US to other, first world countries, and you'll see that I'm very right.
Yet nobody proposes instituting required continued employment when companies plan badly.
Because such a thing would be laughably retarded, because even though you have a few anecdotes that say otherwise, the fact of the matter is that business still holds most, if not close to all the power in the working relationship. Your refusal to acknowledge this shows that you have no idea what you're talking about, either that or don't give a shit about anyone else.
Yes you are. However, you have to recognize that there are differing levels of power between you and the store, and between your employer and you. Odds are the store has lots of other customers, so you deciding to go elsewhere has very little impact on their bottom line. Same with your employer. Odds are they have a line of people waiting to do your job. Meaning your power in that relationship is hugely diminished, giving them the ability to use large amounts of force against you.
Basically, what you're saying is that Might Makes Right. If I have more guns than you, I am entitled to take what is yours, and you can't do shit to stop me.
That is a horrifying, disgusting world to live in. And I guarn-damn-tee that if you found yourself in such a world, within 5 minutes you would be begging for a government to bring some semblance of law and order.
So you are saying that in the absence of a government there is no private property?
Pretty much. In the absence of people agreeing that such a thing as private property exists, it does not. And that group of people, coming together to determine a set of rules for them all to live by? That's a form of government.
If you think you are abused at one employer, it is your absolute right to quit and find another job
Theoretically, yes, that is possible. However, for various reasons, it's not always realistic. That is why you people fail to realize. If someone is not able to be without a job for a prolonged period of time, which is ALWAYS the risk you take when switching jobs, does that mean that person deserves to be abused by their current employer? Fuck no. But you would say that yes, they do deserve it, because you don't believe anything should be done to stop it.
And No, it is not just government. Employers colluding in an area, making the opportunities there just as shitty, is not a fault of government. When you constantly blame government for everything, you blind yourself up to the myriad of problems out there, most which have absolutely nothing to do with government.
It's the same thing as force, but instead of using violence, you're using economic coercion, like the threat of firing someone, to do something they wouldn't do voluntarily.
This is a pretty basic concept, and to not recognize it exists nullifies just about any point you'd make about "liberty". Violence is not the only force out there, and you can do severe harm to someone through means other than beating them up.
Yes, he is violating your right. Otherwise you're admitting that there's no such thing as private property rights, because no one else agreed to respect your rights, and therefore any and all points you have made are invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually see reality? The President is not a dictator, and if Congress, or a large enough minority in Congress decides to dig their heels in and shout "NO" like a bunch of spoiled children, there's not a lot he can do about it.
Only someone who doesn't look at the actual numbers could possibly say that.
What (L)'s said on healthcare is that we should be able to buy health insurance from any and all health insurance companies in the COUNTRY, not just the STATE in which we work or reside.
Why? What happened to all that "States Rights" rhetoric you guys like to bring up for everything? Do states not have the right to regulate insurance within their borders? Or is this another "Do as I say, not as I do" thing that L's are famous for?
Again, you have provided no fucking context for any of your shit. If you actually read any of the shit you tried to research, you'd see that most of those have NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA. Take closing Gitmo. Did your "research", and by that, I mean reading the Romney talking points, inform you that he signed the executive order closing Gitmo the very first day he was in office? No, it probably didn't. How about the part where Congress, the guys who control the purse strings, refused to fund it? No, I'm guessing you didn't read that either. Pull your head out of your ass sometime, and you'd see that things are not as black and white as you make them seem.
Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
I like how 1) You take this completely out of context, and 2) you seem to imply that compromise, the thing in which we all get some of what we want and we make sure that things don't go too far to one side, is bad. It's assholes like you that are ruining this country, with this idea that "compromise" is somehow weak, and that we should just stand and shout "NO" like a bunch of spoiled brats until we get everything we want and the other guy gets nothing. Your idea of politics like that can go fuck itself in the ear.
Not everyone has the means to just up and move across the country. Perhaps people should think about that when they go all gung-ho over "states rights"
Again, read the sig, the 16th amendment does not authorise direct taxes upon individuals
Yes, it does. Your interpretation might think it doesn't, but your interpretation is trumped by the interpretation of those given the Constitutional Authority to interpret such things.
- it's called a metaphor, look it up.
You first. Maybe it would help you in writing things that are not ungodly shitty.
Reading between the lines should be done on the level of LEGISLATION.
No it shouldn't. Reading between the lines is by definition interpreting the law. Which is what they are supposed to do.
Income tax is only legal as a PROFIT TAX on CORPORATE BALANCE SHEET.
Clearly wrong, as the Constitution says Congress has the authority to levy income taxes.
Given that, the rest of your inane rantings make no sense.
so you are of an opinion that if tomorrow the SCOTUS said that in fact the Moon is made of cheese and because of that you are now property of the Moon colony, who has ability to send you into open space without a space suit to mine the cheese from the moon, then it would be Constitutional?
Why would you think something so stupid? The SCOTUS very clearly has no expertise in lunar matters. However, they have dedicated their lives to the study of Constitutional Law. I would say their opinion carries a lot more weight than some idiot who thinks government is to blame for things it's not even involved in.
So you've got absolutely no room to bitch about anything, right? Because you were offered the chance to have your say, and you said, "I'll just go along with whatever anyone else says."
And I like how you try and use "statist" as some kind of derogatory term. It's so cute when people like you try to think.
No, he's pretty spot on. There is no fucking way that Ron Paul would support such a basic internet freedom as Net Neutrality. And without that, the rest of it goes out the window. What good is "internet freedom" if your ISP is equally "free" to limit your connection however they please?
There are very many things that should be run that way. The right of gays to marry, for instance, should be guaranteed throughout the country. I find it insanely laughable that people think it's ok for someone to have a right, then move a small amount, and now that right is taken away.
What's wrong with state's rights?
Slavery and Jim Crow laws, for one.
No, he was very truthful. He said led one bill to execution, not simply sponsored, which takes no effort whatsoever.
Basically what you're saying is you wanted to cherry pick something that supported your rhetoric, and damn anything that conflicts with it.
Exactly. When a employer does not see a union as the enemy, the union should reciprocate in kind. In essence, the rhetoric of "employers are evil" or "unions are evil" are more suitable to 3rd grade verbal fights.
I'll agree with that, however it has been shown that the employers were the ones to start the "seeing the other side as the enemy" bullshit, especially in the US. I really don't care about your 3rd world comparisons, as the US is not a 3rd world country.
Now, there is a lot to blame on the Big Three management for the way they mishandled overseas competition, but the AWU had a lot of blame on it, demanding perks that were no longer justifiable
Like multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses for executives? Why is it always the employees who get blamed for "unjustifiable perks", yet you never mention anything about executive compensation?
No, it is not because of government. It is because of the actions of the companies.
Your obsession with government as being the root of all evil blinds you to the evils committed by others, even to the point where you assign blame for their evils on an unrelated entity.
No, they don't. I don't give a shit what kind of 3rd world comparison you want to make; the US is NOT a 3rd world country, so comparing it to one makes you look like an ass.
Compare the US to other, first world countries, and you'll see that I'm very right.
Yet nobody proposes instituting required continued employment when companies plan badly.
Because such a thing would be laughably retarded, because even though you have a few anecdotes that say otherwise, the fact of the matter is that business still holds most, if not close to all the power in the working relationship. Your refusal to acknowledge this shows that you have no idea what you're talking about, either that or don't give a shit about anyone else.
Yes you are. However, you have to recognize that there are differing levels of power between you and the store, and between your employer and you. Odds are the store has lots of other customers, so you deciding to go elsewhere has very little impact on their bottom line. Same with your employer. Odds are they have a line of people waiting to do your job. Meaning your power in that relationship is hugely diminished, giving them the ability to use large amounts of force against you.
Yes, yes you are.
Basically, what you're saying is that Might Makes Right. If I have more guns than you, I am entitled to take what is yours, and you can't do shit to stop me.
That is a horrifying, disgusting world to live in. And I guarn-damn-tee that if you found yourself in such a world, within 5 minutes you would be begging for a government to bring some semblance of law and order.
So you are saying that in the absence of a government there is no private property?
Pretty much. In the absence of people agreeing that such a thing as private property exists, it does not. And that group of people, coming together to determine a set of rules for them all to live by? That's a form of government.
If you think you are abused at one employer, it is your absolute right to quit and find another job
Theoretically, yes, that is possible. However, for various reasons, it's not always realistic. That is why you people fail to realize. If someone is not able to be without a job for a prolonged period of time, which is ALWAYS the risk you take when switching jobs, does that mean that person deserves to be abused by their current employer? Fuck no. But you would say that yes, they do deserve it, because you don't believe anything should be done to stop it.
And No, it is not just government. Employers colluding in an area, making the opportunities there just as shitty, is not a fault of government. When you constantly blame government for everything, you blind yourself up to the myriad of problems out there, most which have absolutely nothing to do with government.
It's the same thing as force, but instead of using violence, you're using economic coercion, like the threat of firing someone, to do something they wouldn't do voluntarily.
This is a pretty basic concept, and to not recognize it exists nullifies just about any point you'd make about "liberty". Violence is not the only force out there, and you can do severe harm to someone through means other than beating them up.
Yes, he is violating your right. Otherwise you're admitting that there's no such thing as private property rights, because no one else agreed to respect your rights, and therefore any and all points you have made are invalid.