5th Amendment can be overturned by Execuative Order [Archive]

Hawanja

September 19th, 2007, 12:30 PM

Do you take issue with seizing/freezing assets directed toward furthering possible threats from a foreign country or ANYONE?
Due process usually is a big thing when the 5th Amendment is brought up but an "emergency clause" will negate the need for door hangers and mail-outs. Hey! These folks wouldn't co-operate anyway! :laugh: The idea that your neighbors down the street might be plotting/supporting the overthrow/disruption of our method of government isn't very appealing to me.
CONFISCATION is used with the "war on drugs". Get busted with dope in a vehicle and a wrecker is called. A search warrant pans out, say bye-bye to your house.
A little "fine-tuning" every so often to even the best laid plans such as the Bill of Rights might be in order, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Since when is it ok to take someone's property when they're convicted of a crime?

If said property was bought with the gains of said crime, which should have to be proven, that's one thing. Grabbing assets in lew of fines is another.

But look at what this order says:

to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

i.e. WAR PROTESTING. Going out and marching in front of a government building, as guarenteed by your right to peaceably assemble, is now illegal under clause (b) there. Becasue to do so is to undermine "efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

That's right, get busted holding a sign, and the government can now "confiscate" your house. Does that seem fair to you? Is that a little "fine tuneing" of the bill of rights?

Hey, what if the next president is a democrat, and he decides to use this executive order? Let's see how fast the right wing pundits jump all over it then. But it's A-ok as long as Bush is in the white house, huh?

(Sorry, but talk of this president has a tendency to make me fly into a rage. It just seems to me that people who support this man walk around with blinders on, and a bit of sarcasam and insults are needed to like, force them to examine what exactly it is they're supporting. Defend this president at your peril. )

Gorjirus

September 19th, 2007, 04:50 PM

i.e. WAR PROTESTING. Going out and marching in front of a government building, as guarenteed by your right to peaceably assemble, is now illegal under clause (b) there. Becasue to do so is to undermine "efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

That's right, get busted holding a sign, and the government can now "confiscate" your house. Does that seem fair to you? Is that a little "fine tuneing" of the bill of rights?

Hey, what if the next president is a democrat, and he decides to use this executive order? Let's see how fast the right wing pundits jump all over it then. But it's A-ok as long as Bush is in the white house, huh?

(Sorry, but talk of this president has a tendency to make me fly into a rage. It just seems to me that people who support this man walk around with blinders on, and a bit of sarcasam and insults are needed to like, force them to examine what exactly it is they're supporting. Defend this president at your peril. )

If it hasn't happened, then you have no proof that is how it was meant to be.

Besides most of the "Anti-Bush" crap, isn't just Bush's fault.

Raptor

September 19th, 2007, 05:23 PM

i.e. WAR PROTESTING. Going out and marching in front of a government building, as guarenteed by your right to peaceably assemble, is now illegal under clause (b) there. Becasue to do so is to undermine "efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

That's right, get busted holding a sign, and the government can now "confiscate" your house. Is that a little "fine tuneing" of the bill of rights? More Than 190 Arrested at D.C. Protest (http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2007/09/more-than-190-arrested-at-d-c-protest) - WHY did they get arrested? Did anything get confiscated? See what I highlighted.
Hey, what if the next president is a democrat, and he decides to use this executive order? Let's see how fast the right wing pundits jump all over it then. But it's A-ok as long as Bush is in the white house, huh?

(Sorry, but talk of this president has a tendency to make me fly into a rage.But aren't you just feeding the flames? ;) It just seems to me that people who support this man walk around with blinders on, and a bit of sarcasam and insults are needed to like, force them to examine what exactly it is they're supporting. Defend this president at your peril. )What you're going to see is that there are people who don't buy into all the inane name calling and mis-directed internet rhetoric. Get out there and try to do something CONSTRUCTIVE about all these so-called problems being dredged up. Flailing about with a broad brush is no more effective than trying to whitewash an issue.

Hawanja

September 19th, 2007, 07:12 PM

If it hasn't happened, then you have no proof that is how it was meant to be.

Ahhh... it hasn't happened, yes.... not yet.

The idea is to not allow the law to get to the point where such a thing could be allowed to happen in the first place. Remeber laws can be applied in different ways at different times, depending on how they're interpeted.

If we passed a law that said it was ok to sell crack to children, yet no one actually sold crack to children, yet, would that be ok?

If a law was passed that said a cop was allowed to shoot you for running a red light, but there had been no reported cases of such a thing happening, at the present time, should the law still be allowed to stay on the books?

My point here is that if the law says it's permissible, or rather can be interpeted in such a way as to allow such behavior, then it's only a matter of time before it happens. Thus as it's our job to defend freedom and liberty (mainly, our own that is) we shouldn't allow such laws to stand in the first place.

Kaiser Kronos

September 19th, 2007, 07:43 PM

Um, I have two points to say:

First, to Hawanja: Get real. Bush doesn't run this administration. It was Rummy and Dick, and then Dick. Bush is a hands-off president who allows himself and his staff to bungle every opportunity they have to get better relationships with other countries and the News Media. Fox News does not count as news, rather the Paris Hilton Channel.

As for the threat of Bush using this to do such a thing....

HitlerMcChimpyBurton (One of my favorite satirical titles for someone ever) doesn't have the brains to even think of such an action. If it was to be done, I say it would be Cheney's fault. As for such laws, I dare say that had you been living as a progressive in times past, you would eagerly support things such as eugenics, and wouldn't have considered them evil. Laws change with times, and progressivism has stains on it that make me question the motives of statements like this. You say you're a leftist? Don't you fellas take the high moral ground, instead of fear-mongering about the NEBIL RIGHT WING CONSPIRAZY OMG!!?

Yes, I know I'm one to talk with my Bush-As-Prez-for-Life-Thread, but hypocrisy is a human trait, and I just proved my humanity here.

Gorjirus

September 19th, 2007, 08:08 PM

If we passed a law that said it was ok to sell crack to children, yet no one actually sold crack to children, yet, would that be ok?

See, that's bad debating.

You compare something blatant with something that in some weird way, could possibly be construed.

If a law was passed that said a cop was allowed to shoot you for running a red light, but there had been no reported cases of such a thing happening, at the present time, should the law still be allowed to stay on the books?

I would totally be up for that.

My point here is that if the law says it's permissible, or rather can be interpeted in such a way as to allow such behavior, then it's only a matter of time before it happens. Thus as it's our job to defend freedom and liberty (mainly, our own that is) we shouldn't allow such laws to stand in the first place.

See, own liberty.

My liberty is doing just fine. Even if they did go around stealing houses, I'm not some psuedo-hippie war protestor. So I'm good.

and I just proved my humanity here.

And now we know.

Hawanja

September 19th, 2007, 08:36 PM

You compare something blatant with something that in some weird way, could possibly be construed.

Ok, point taken. Let's say then it was a law that said it wasn't illegal to sell street drugs to consenting adults, the same way alcohol and smokes are. Yet, the law was worded in such a way as that it could be interpeted to allow peddlers to target children, a classic example of a badly written law (of which get passed all the time.) Would it be right then to let such a law stand?

See, own liberty.

My liberty is doing just fine. Even if they did go around stealing houses, I'm not some psuedo-hippie war protestor. So I'm good.

Yes, my liberty. Becasue, by protecting my own liberty, I am also protecting everyone else's liberty, and vice versa. I don't see anything wrong or hypocritical by wanting to cover my own bootay first.

Please understand, if they can take it from me, they can take it from you too. Don't think for a second alliance with a particular political party is going to protect you.

Get real. Bush doesn't run this administration. It was Rummy and Dick, and then Dick. Bush is a hands-off president who allows himself and his staff to bungle every opportunity they have to get better relationships with other countries and the News Media. Fox News does not count as news, rather the Paris Hilton Channel.

Oh yes, totally agree with you there. But he is the public face of this little cabal of warmongering thieves... oh sorry, administration is what I meant to say.

See, you admit that you think they're just as phoney-baloney as I do. Isn't there something wrong with that, when we can just chock up such blatant corruption to "that's how it's always been?" You think people thought that way in 1776? I submit that not all presidents have been slimebags, just the ones in recent memory. What about Thomas Jefferson? Roosevelt? Esienhower? Why can't we seem to get leaders of that caliber today?

Or rather, why do we settle for less?

As for such laws, I dare say that had you been living as a progressive in times past, you would eagerly support things such as eugenics, and wouldn't have considered them evil. Laws change with times, and progressivism has stains on it that make me question the motives of statements like this. You say you're a leftist? Don't you fellas take the high moral ground, instead of fear-mongering about the NEBIL RIGHT WING CONSPIRAZY OMG!!?

Too true, laws and social attitudes do change with the times, so let us thank our personal creator that we live in the time we do.

Also, back then pretty much everyone believed in Eugenics, not just the leftists. The rich corporate class did also, and actually encouraged such practices as a way of lessening the "social burden" on society. They used to do things like sterilize criminals, deformed, and insane people without thier consent, and this was in California at the turn of the century, not Nazi Germany. That's right folks, right here in the United States.

As you mention, pretty much all political theories have the same kind of stain. Conservatives stood against women's sufferage, the democratic party of today was a staunch supporter of slavery, republicans used to support child labor and stood against the 8 hour work day. But that doesn't mean such political ideologies are totally worthless, or even stigmitized today for that matter.

Gorjirus

September 19th, 2007, 08:44 PM

Let's say then it was a law that said it wasn't illegal to sell street drugs to consenting adults, the same way alcohol and smokes are. Yet, the law was worded in such a way as that it could be interpeted to allow peddlers to target children, a classic example of a badly written law (of which get passed all the time.) Would it be right then to let such a law stand?

Much better.

The law should be ammeneded, intentially stating about children. But on the whole, the law should stand (though I don't personally agree with it).

Freakin' druggies...

Yes, my liberty. Becasue, by protecting my own liberty, I am also protecting everyone else's liberty, and vice versa. I don't see anything wrong or hypocritical by wanting to cover my own bootay first.

Well, see? You actually just kind of agreed with me. My "bootay" is covered.

Please understand, if they can take it from me, they can take it from you too. Don't think for a second alliance with a particular political party is going to protect you.

No, political party has nothing to do with it.

Even according to you, it has to do with war protesting, etc. And that's not gonna be me.

Or rather, why do we settle for less?

Because liberals killed off the chance of greater men being made.

But he is the public face of this little cabal of warmongering thieves... oh sorry, administration is what I meant to say.

*snort*

lol

Invading one country, then scrambling to cover your *** doesn't count as warmongering. If they were, we would have already gotten Iran, possibly North Korea (though, *gasp*, that was solved without violence!), and Venezuala.

They used to do things like sterilize criminals

Are you talking kill, clean, or castrate?

Because I would totally be for the last two, and sometimes the first.

Kaiser Kronos

September 19th, 2007, 09:48 PM

Ok, point taken. Let's say then it was a law that said it wasn't illegal to sell street drugs to consenting adults, the same way alcohol and smokes are. Yet, the law was worded in such a way as that it could be interpeted to allow peddlers to target children, a classic example of a badly written law (of which get passed all the time.) Would it be right then to let such a law stand?

Yes, my liberty. Becasue, by protecting my own liberty, I am also protecting everyone else's liberty, and vice versa. I don't see anything wrong or hypocritical by wanting to cover my own bootay first.

Please understand, if they can take it from me, they can take it from you too. Don't think for a second alliance with a particular political party is going to protect you.

Oh yes, totally agree with you there. But he is the public face of this little cabal of warmongering thieves... oh sorry, administration is what I meant to say.

See, you admit that you think they're just as phoney-baloney as I do. Isn't there something wrong with that, when we can just chock up such blatant corruption to "that's how it's always been?" You think people thought that way in 1776? I submit that not all presidents have been slimebags, just the ones in recent memory. What about Thomas Jefferson? Roosevelt? Esienhower? Why can't we seem to get leaders of that caliber today?

Or rather, why do we settle for less?

Too true, laws and social attitudes do change with the times, so let us thank our personal creator that we live in the time we do.

Also, back then pretty much everyone believed in Eugenics, not just the leftists. The rich corporate class did also, and actually encouraged such practices as a way of lessening the "social burden" on society. They used to do things like sterilize criminals, deformed, and insane people without thier consent, and this was in California at the turn of the century, not Nazi Germany. That's right folks, right here in the United States.

As you mention, pretty much all political theories have the same kind of stain. Conservatives stood against women's sufferage, the democratic party of today was a staunch supporter of slavery, republicans used to support child labor and stood against the 8 hour work day. But that doesn't mean such political ideologies are totally worthless, or even stigmitized today for that matter.

Ok, here we go:

It wouldn't be right to let such a law stand regarding children. They lack a certain facility called reason that would enable them to understand that the white stuff in the drug dealer's bag isn't sugar called reason. That's a fact.

As for allegiance with certain political parties not protecting, it at least won't hurt.

Now, for the Presidents: Jefferson was hardly a noble or moral man. He originally wrote the Declaration to condemn slavery while handily profiting from the selling and buying of other human beings. On top of that, he cheated on his wife, and he also fervently supported genocidal extermination of Native Americans. Jefferson's "all men" applied solely to rich elites like him.

Roosevelt did everything but throw the kitchen sink at Germany and Japan to draw us into the war, and also kindly neglected to take in Jewish refugees from the Holocaust. In addition, Roosevelt also had no qualms about appeasing Mussolini of Italy and trying to take credit for the Munich peace conference. Hardly what I'd call noble.

Eisenhower was a do-nothing president who allowed social problems in America to grow and grow until the chaos of the 1960s began. Again, not a good leader.

As for why we settle for less, it isn't because of liberals, as America was quite liberal for its time in earlier days. It's more because of the tendency of modern elections to resemble beauty pageants for ugly people.

As for the Rich Corporate Class supporting this, they've (or their old-school equivalents) always supported getting rid of the poor unwashed masses. The Klan of the 1860s was mostly made up of former rich, white Southerners after all.

Gorjirus

September 19th, 2007, 10:42 PM

As for the Rich Corporate Class supporting this, they've (or their old-school equivalents) always supported getting rid of the poor unwashed masses. The Klan of the 1860s was mostly made up of former rich, white Southerners after all.

So, what are you going to bring up about rich white northerners?

Otherwise your claim is wrong as it only talks about a small, regionalized area/people, where the fact they are Southern and white is more important than rich.

Hawanja

September 20th, 2007, 04:18 AM

The law should be ammeneded, intentially stating about children. But on the whole, the law should stand (though I don't personally agree with it).

Well, then let's amend this law, so that it specifically states that it will not apply to someone arrested for merely protesting. Because as it is now it could be interpreted to mean so.

Well, see? You actually just kind of agreed with me. My "bootay" is covered.

No it's not, sorry if you think it is, but it's not. That law says any material assistance to "terrorists." That wording is so loose, that something as innocuous as renting a room, buying lunch for someone, or giving someone a ride falls under it.

Notice also it doesn't say anything about intent in that law.

No, political party has nothing to do with it.

Even according to you, it has to do with war protesting, etc. And that's not gonna be me.

See what you're telling me is that this will never ever apply to you becasue you'll never break this particular law, so who cares if it's unjust. But it doesn't have to be you specifically. I assume you have relatives and friends? People out there you care about? Hey, here's a scenario for you - say the Liberals wet dream comes true, and the president grows a brain and starts pulling troops out. Feel like you might want to protest then?

Because liberals killed off the chance of greater men being made.

Wow. I vote we strike this remark from the record, on account that it has no basis in reality. If you want, start a new thread about it, I'll be glad to lay it out for you there.

Invading one country, then scrambling to cover your *** doesn't count as warmongering. If they were, we would have already gotten Iran, possibly North Korea (though, *gasp*, that was solved without violence!), and Venezuala.

You're kidding, right? Wasn't this whole thing about keeping Weapons of Mass destruction out of the hands of the "Axis of evil?"

North Korea exploded a nuclear weapon. That's "solved" huh? Good job Mr. President.

Iran? There's still a year and a half left in the Bush presidency. Do a few Googles, it's pretty obvious they're waiting for any reason whatsoever to bomb the hell out of Iran. Oh, they can't invade on account of all our troops getting creamed by car bombs and IEDs every five minutes. But they can easily unleash "shock and awe" on Tehran anytime they want to.

(Which would be the worst thing they could possibly do, and the Pentagon knows it. Hopefully there's someone in there with some sense to see how much of a strategic disaster a war with Iran would be at this time. )

Venezuela? Don't tell me you actually think Hugo Chavez has weapons of mass destruction. What has he done to warrant invasion? Offer to give us cheap gasoline for the hurricane Katrina cleanup efforts? Yeah that's a good reason to invade them.

Please don't tell me you actually believe Hugo Chavez is somehow in league with Al Queda. Because if you do, don't bother trying to talk to me on this forum ever again, I'll be too busy laughing to respond.

Seriously, I'm trying to remain civil here. But ridiculous ideas like this are making it hard for me, the inner cynical a-hole forum troll keeps trying to burst out.

Anyway, onto the other response...

Yeah Kronos, gotta agree with pretty much everything you said. I still say Eisenhower, Jefferson, and Roosevelt were better leaders than Bush, Clinton, Al Gore, Ronald Regan, Hilliary Clinton, Obama, or God Forbid, Rudolph Guliani (sorry, can't even look at that guy's name without gagging.) As flawed and corrupt at they were, they got nothing on the swill that infects capital hill today.

As for the Rich Corporate Class supporting this, they've (or their old-school equivalents) always supported getting rid of the poor unwashed masses. The Klan of the 1860s was mostly made up of former rich, white Southerners after all.

Well, they also seem to stand against every kind of forward thinking social program that actually helps people - minimum wage laws, health insurance, (not even state sponsored health care, just plain ol' employer provided health care,) overtime pay, voting rights, property rights, etc, which means even though I owe my job to them, they'll always be at odds with me. Becasue screw that.

Kaiser Kronos

September 20th, 2007, 08:08 AM

So, what are you going to bring up about rich white northerners?

Otherwise your claim is wrong as it only talks about a small, regionalized area/people, where the fact they are Southern and white is more important than rich.

The Klan got quite a few members in the North in and in the Midwest in the 1920s about immigration and the threat to so-called "Anglo-Saxon American purity."

As for the Rich, White Northerners, I believe Dick Cheney and Bush both qualify as that. Not to mention such politicians as the Kennedy family, and the Kerry family. Democrats are just as much greedy rich *******s as the Republican, they merely disguise their patrician airs with talk of the people. It's so much easier to talk about helping the poor than actually doing something, after all. I don't recall such fine people as Kerry and Dukakis actually doing one damn bit about what they'd claim to do. :sarcasm:

As for invading North Korea and Venezuela, with what? What sort of army do you think we have? We can barely eke out enough mercenaries-I mean volunteers-to keep Iraq and Afghanistan pacified. How would we somehow gain the large numbers of troops necessary to beat Kim's boys and then Chavez later? We don't have that many troops. :dontgetit
Now for Hawanja:

What I believe the stated reason for hating Chavez is is that he's a greedy dictatorial ******* who desires only power and to resurrect the dead ghost of communism. The actual reason? The Colossus of the North just hates it when our poor southern neighbors actually do something themselves. :dozing:

As for your thesis, assuming HitlerMcChimpyburton and Darth Cheney somehow were to start doing this, they'd have to disguise it until they'd silenced the media. Seriously, dude, even the Paris Hilton Channel would report that!

Gorjirus

September 20th, 2007, 09:25 AM

Well, then let's amend this law, so that it specifically states that it will not apply to someone arrested for merely protesting. Because as it is now it could be interpreted to mean so.

But the law you mentioned is still a bad example, because it only talks about adults, and nothing about children either way.

No it's not, sorry if you think it is, but it's not. That law says any material assistance to "terrorists." That wording is so loose, that something as innocuous as renting a room, buying lunch for someone, or giving someone a ride falls under it.

You go around buying lunches for terrorists? No?

Then there isn't much of a problem.

But it doesn't have to be you specifically. I assume you have relatives and friends? People out there you care about? Hey, here's a scenario for you - say the Liberals wet dream comes true, and the president grows a brain and starts pulling troops out. Feel like you might want to protest then?

*snort*

You kidding? My family? Protesting? I laugh. My family is a bunch of rural farmers, who for the most part could care less about foriegn policy.

My friends? lol

Oh, and no, I wouldn't protest. I have no problem with pulling out and letting the ME kill each other. IMO, that would be an excellent idea if we just pulled all of our troops back, formed a "defensive" border around the ME, and let them do whatever they want to each other.

Wow. I vote we strike this remark from the record, on account that it has no basis in reality. If you want, start a new thread about it, I'll be glad to lay it out for you there.

You're kidding, right?

Country went downhill so fast ever since the birth of the hippie.....

Damn hippies!

You're kidding, right? Wasn't this whole thing about keeping Weapons of Mass destruction out of the hands of the "Axis of evil?"

North Korea exploded a nuclear weapon. That's "solved" huh? Good job Mr. President.

C'mon now. You can rip them for one or the other, but both is just proving you are going to rip them no matter what?

And so they exploded a weapon. The fact is, the story continues after that, and North Korea has stepped down from their aggresive pedestal because of diplomacy.

Plus, c'mon. The President isn't in control of everything.

Iran? There's still a year and a half left in the Bush presidency. Do a few Googles, it's pretty obvious they're waiting for any reason whatsoever to bomb the hell out of Iran. Oh, they can't invade on account of all our troops getting creamed by car bombs and IEDs every five minutes. But they can easily unleash "shock and awe" on Tehran anytime they want to.

(Which would be the worst thing they could possibly do, and the Pentagon knows it. Hopefully there's someone in there with some sense to see how much of a strategic disaster a war with Iran would be at this time. )

If you think I'm going to trust some google searches, you're crazy.

And they are working with diplomacy in Iran. And *gasp* it has actually helped some.

Venezuela? Don't tell me you actually think Hugo Chavez has weapons of mass destruction. What has he done to warrant invasion? Offer to give us cheap gasoline for the hurricane Katrina cleanup efforts? Yeah that's a good reason to invade them.

Actually, it has more to do with him wanting weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that he in destroying free speech to the extreme of shutting down a tv station pisses me off.

Please don't tell me you actually believe Hugo Chavez is somehow in league with Al Queda. Because if you do, don't bother trying to talk to me on this forum ever again, I'll be too busy laughing to respond.

Really? I'm having a hard time talking to you.

And I've had conversations with Doc for goodness sakes.

Ronald Regan

So, the guy who helped end the Cold War is a bad leader?

Well, they also seem to stand against every kind of forward thinking social program that actually helps people - minimum wage laws, health insurance, (not even state sponsored health care, just plain ol' employer provided health care,) overtime pay, voting rights, property rights, etc, which means even though I owe my job to them, they'll always be at odds with me. Becasue screw that.

Voting rights? Rich Coporate America is against voting rights that have been in place for decades?

And *gasp* minimum wage has been raised. and there is a business economic reason for minimum wage increases taking so long, as they decrese the number of job positions.

And not every company has or should give out health care.

Bush

C'mon now, you can do better.

Everyone knows about Bush and Texas.

Texas =/= North.

As for invading North Korea and Venezuela, with what? What sort of army do you think we have? We can barely eke out enough mercenaries-I mean volunteers-to keep Iraq and Afghanistan pacified. How would we somehow gain the large numbers of troops necessary to beat Kim's boys and then Chavez later? We don't have that many troops.

That's the point KK. If they were warmongering, they wouldn't have cared, and just bombed the crap out of them without troops.

But, we didn't. It was solved (and in Iran's case) and possibly postponed by diplomacy. The antithesis of warmongering.

Orga777

September 20th, 2007, 12:27 PM

So, the guy who helped end the Cold War is a bad leader?

Well, he is the reason why our National Debt is the way it is....

Gorjirus

September 20th, 2007, 12:54 PM

Well, he is the reason why our National Debt is the way it is....

And anybody who took even basic Microeconomics can tell you that the National Debt is a farce, a useless number that is only thrown around by politicians and in political arguments.

Hawanja

September 20th, 2007, 01:12 PM

But the law you mentioned is still a bad example, because it only talks about adults, and nothing about children either way.

Ahem... that's exactly why such a law should be amended in the first place - bad wording. Same as this terrorism law here.

You go around buying lunches for terrorists? No?

Then there isn't much of a problem.

Remeber when I said this?

Notice also it doesn't say anything about intent in that law.

You could unknowingly buy lunch for a terrorist, and BAM - Guantanamo bay for you. Have fun down there.

You kidding? My family? Protesting? I laugh. My family is a bunch of rural farmers, who for the most part could care less about foriegn policy.

My friends? lol

Oh, and no, I wouldn't protest. I have no problem with pulling out and letting the ME kill each other. IMO, that would be an excellent idea if we just pulled all of our troops back, formed a "defensive" border around the ME, and let them do whatever they want to each other.

So, you're telling me farmers, as a whole, do not protest anything? What about these chicken farmers then:

Chicken Farmers Protest Anti-terror Rules (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/22/terror/main3194196.shtml)

And so they exploded a weapon. The fact is, the story continues after that, and North Korea has stepped down from their aggresive pedestal because of diplomacy.

Hmmm... well then, why did we invade one country that "might" have been close to developing nukes, but not invade another country that definetly was close to developing nukes?

I mean, I seem to remember Colin Powell going before the U.N. with this big long speech, with satillite photos of mobile weapons labs and hidden missiles at Saddam's presidential palaces, telling us they had forty thousand tons of nerve gas and the like - sounded pretty convincing huh? Too bad they only actually found like one tupperwear container of botchulism and 500 altillery shells that dated back to the 80s. A far cry from the "mushroom cloud in 45 minutes" they told us about.

If all we had to do was use dipolmacy, why then didn't we use diplomacy with Saddamn? Tell me a reason that doesn't include the lie that he was in leauge with Al Queda, becasue he wasn't.

Then North Korea turns around and detonates a nuclear weapon. Wow. Looks like someone chose the wrong country to invade, wouldn't you say?

Of course, if you realise they're lying to you, and the war isn't about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction but is instead about what all wars in resource rich third world coutries are always about - our corporations getting thier hands on said resources - then it makes sense, doesn't it?

Actually, it has more to do with him wanting weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that he in destroying free speech to the extreme of shutting down a tv station pisses me off.

That's total bullshlt. Venezuela does not have any kind of nuclear or biological weapons programs at all. Hugo Chavez offered to send us aid after Hurricane Katrina - which was refused. This is despite the fact that the coup attempt against him was backed by the CIA, and don't tell me it wasn't, because it was.

You know, post the source where you found this information. I want to know who is filling your head with these lies.

Voting rights? Rich Coporate America is against voting rights that have been in place for decades?

This stetement tells me you know absolutley nothing about history.

And *gasp* minimum wage has been raised. and there is a business economic reason for minimum wage increases taking so long, as they decrese the number of job positions.

Yeah, after eight years of remaining the same. What did they raise it to now? $7.25, right? Try living on that, go ahead. You know, that's what I made in 1996, over ten years ago, and even back then it wasn't enough to live on.

Truth is, the amount of real wages has been going down over the last thrity years. $7.25 can't buy today what it could buy in 1977, and in fact we all make less than our parents did, even though our "wages" are higher.

And not every company has or should give out health care.

Explain to me why they shouldn't. Why is it a good thing for a large employer not to supply decent health care. I'm not talking about mom & pop's tiny-*** bagel shop that employes three people, I'm talking about huge multi-national corporations that make megabillions of dollars. Why should they not have health plans for all their employees?

So, the guy who helped end the Cold War is a bad leader?

Yes, in my opinion Regan was a slimebag - he closed down all the mental hospitals in my state, and created a whole underclass of homeless insane people.

From your post I take it you live off in some pig farm in the middle of nowhere, and the only homeless people you see are like train jumping hobos or something, with the hankerchief tied over the stick, blowing on a harmonica while they steal your momma's apple pie from cooling on the window sill. The classic hobo who wants to live "free" and doesn't work becasue he chooses not to.

In real life 90% of homeless people are insane, and need mental help. In the 70s when Regan was govenor of California he shut down all the state run mental clinics, and turned all these people out onto the street. Thirty years later we now have millions upon millions of homeless insane people, whole families of them, eating garbage, sleeping in filth, all becasue of Ronald Regan. He started the chain reaction that caused this.

Yeah, he ended the cold war, single handedly. I also think the pope had a lot to do with that, along with Gorbechev.

You know, you really ought to learn how to use google, since it's obvious you have no freakin' clue about what's really going on out there.

If I felt like being a jerk or something, at this point I would post a gif. of some kind of funny animation, perhaps of a dancing bannana or something holding a sign that said "pizzowned" or "Moded!" or something. But you know, I'm in a caring mood today. So here's a cute kitten instead, if you think mutants are cute, that is:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4710/8leggedcatjb5.jpg

Dr. Strangelove

September 20th, 2007, 01:23 PM

...

Saying that Reagan single-handedly ended the cold war is total, utter bullshit. If anything, he contributed the least to the cause. The man who helped us the most was FDR. Through his *friendship* with Stalin, there wasn't a Red Steam Roller paving over Europe in 1945. Had FDR lived longer than he did, we might've actually kept our "Allied" status with the Soviets.

Truman didn't do too bad, but he was too aggressive against a nation that out-produced what Germany did in the entire war, in a single month. And he's the one who started that whole Nuclear-Arms-Race deal. >_<

Ike was a bit worse...infact, up until Kennedy, it kept on getting progessively worse. It got better with Kennedy. Yeah, he had an itchy trigger finger, but short of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he didn't anger the Soviets all too much.

Then everything just went straight down hill. Johnson was a scumbag, Nixon even moreso, Reagan left a trail of bullshit behind him second only to the current Bush administration..

SuperXAsh

September 20th, 2007, 01:25 PM

It just seems to me that people who support this man walk around with blinders on, and a bit of sarcasam and insults are needed to like, force them to examine what exactly it is they're supporting.

I could easily say the same thing about Liberals, and easily debate this for a good number of pages, you do know that right?

Gorjirus

September 20th, 2007, 01:37 PM

Ahem... that's exactly why such a law should be amended in the first place - bad wording. Same as this terrorism law here.

Except your example went from a to c. The law is actually clear on what it means, since you have already shown and explained what it means.

You could unknowingly buy lunch for a terrorist, and BAM - Guantanamo bay for you. Have fun down there.

*snicker and laugh*

I don't know what's funnier: the chance a person is a terrorist, or the thought of me buying someone lunch.

So, you're telling me farmers, as a whole, do not protest anything?

Where do I say not protest anything? I said foriegn policy.

Doesn't help your case when you go sticking words in my mouth.

Hmmm... well then, why did we invade one country that "might" have been close to developing nukes, but not invade another country that definetly was close to developing nukes?

I mean, I seem to remember Colin Powell going before the U.N. with this big long speech, with satillite photos of mobile weapons labs and hidden missiles at Saddam's presidential palaces, telling us they had forty thousand tons of nerve gas and the like - sounded pretty convincing huh? Too bad they only actually found like one tupperwear container of botchulism and 500 altillery shells that dated back to the 80s. A far cry from the "mushroom cloud in 45 minutes" they told us about.

If all we had to do was use dipolmacy, why then didn't we use diplomacy with Saddamn? Tell me a reason that doesn't include the lie that he was in leauge with Al Queda, becasue he wasn't.

Then North Korea turns around and detonates a nuclear weapon. Wow. Looks like someone chose the wrong country to invade, wouldn't you say?

Of course, if you realise they're lying to you, and the war isn't about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction but is instead about what all wars in resource rich third world coutries are always about - our corporations getting thier hands on said resources - then it makes sense, doesn't it?

Oh, you people are so weird.

So, are you saying you wanted us to invade North Korea? Or was it actually good we used diplomacy?

And of course, anything always has to come back to Iraq! And those evil coniving business', always trying to invade countries.

That's total bullshlt. Venezuela does not have any kind of nuclear or biological weapons programs at all. Hugo Chavez offered to send us aid after Hurricane Katrina - which was refused. This is despite the fact that the coup attempt against him was backed by the CIA, and don't tell me it wasn't, because it was.

You know, post the source where you found this information. I want to know who is filling your head with these lies.

Wait, what? You think that just because they don't have them, he doesn't want or would like to have them?

Your the crazy one if you think that.

And ignore the whole part about him curbing TV stations.

This stetement tells me you know absolutley nothing about history.

And *gasp* history isn't the present.

The rich corporations of the past, are not that of the present.

Yeah, after eight years of remaining the same. What did they raise it to now? $7.25, right? Try living on that, go ahead.

Actually it is now on a constant plane of increase that will stop at 8 or 9 something.

And see, you go talking about real wages, while ignoring the part of decresing the number of jobs.

Less people with more money, or more people with less money.

Explain to me why they shouldn't. Why is it a good thing for a large employer not to supply decent health care. I'm not talking about mom & pop's tiny-*** bagel shop that employes three people, I'm talking about huge multi-national corporations that make megabillions of dollars. Why should they not have health plans for all their employees?

Why should they?

They are "obligated"? Should they do it because it "feels" good?

From your post I take it you live off in some pig farm in the middle of nowhere, and the only homeless people you see are like train jumping hobos or something, with the hankerchief tied over the stick, blowing on a harmonica while they steal your momma's apple pie from cooling on the window sill. The classic hobo who wants to live "free" and doesn't work becasue he chooses not to.

Oooooo....

Trying to make a point by being "personal"?

Even if you were right, your debate skills suck.

Yes, in my opinion Regan was a slimebag - he closed down all the metal hospitals in my state, and created a whole underclass of homeless insane people.

In real life 90% of homeless people are insane, and need mental help. In the 70s when Regan was govenor of California he shut down all the state run mental clinics, and turned all these people out onto the street. Thirty years later we now have millions upon millions of homeless people, eating garbage, sleeping in filth, all becasue of Ronald Regan.

So, what, you hate him a a president, beecause of what he did as govenor?

And shouldn't you also *gasp* hate every govenor that came after him for not recifying the situation? Or is it just more fun to blame the person who started the problem, and not those who did nothing to fix it?

You know, you really oought to learn how to use google, since it's obvious you have no freakin' clue about what's really going on out there.

*laugh*

Like google and nut theories are going to shine light on situations?

So here's a cute kitten instead, if you think mutants are cute, that is

Yeah, its cute. I'd keep it as a pet.

Plus, I've seen worse.

Saying that Reagan single-handedly ended the cold war is total, utter bullshit.

Exactly Doc. Which is why I never said that.

Don't tell me you feel for the n00bs ploy of putting words in my mouth?

Hawanja

September 20th, 2007, 04:38 PM

Except your example went from a to c. The law is actually clear on what it means, since you have already shown and explained what it means.

Yeah it' clear on what it does, but not to who it applies to. That's the beef I have with it.

Where do I say not protest anything? I said foriegn policy.

Ok, that's fine, you don't have to admit defeat or anything. Merely admit that laws like this effect you too, becasue they do.

So, are you saying you wanted us to invade North Korea? Or was it actually good we used diplomacy?

And of course, anything always has to come back to Iraq! And those evil coniving business', always trying to invade countries.

I'm saying why didn't we use diplomacy with Iraq, like we did with North Korea? Don't say Iraq wasn't cooperating with the IAEA, becasue they were.

Wait, what? You think that just because they don't have them, he doesn't want or would like to have them?

Your the crazy one if you think that.

And ignore the whole part about him curbing TV stations.

Does Venezulea have a nuclear program, or does it not? Does it have a biological/chemical weapons program, or does it not? Where is the source that told you they were looking to aquire such weapons? I assume it was a news story or governement report or whatnot? Give me a source, or I must assume you're just making this shlt up.

As for the TV stations and Chavez curbing free speech, you're right, he did. There was a reason for it, while I agree with you that curtailing free speech is wrong, in his case I can understand why it was done. I suggest you watch this documentry, which is availible free online:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

That'll explain what's going on with Venezula - I suggest you balance that liberal documentry with what you hear in the right wing media and decide for yourself where the truth is.

And *gasp* history isn't the present.

The rich corporations of the past, are not that of the present.

You're really niave, you know that?

Actually it is now on a constant plane of increase that will stop at 8 or 9 something.

And see, you go talking about real wages, while ignoring the part of decresing the number of jobs.

Less people with more money, or more people with less money.

You make it sound like if we raise the minimum wage, suddenly all these companies are going to automatically go out of business. You're forgeting that jobs that pay the minimum aren't the kind you can ship overseas - you can't outsource a guy cleaning toilets at Taco Bell. The companies that already pay someone a decent wage aren't effected by this. When was the last time you saw a McDonalds go out of business becasue they had to pay thier workers too much? You haven't, because it doesn't happen.

Why should they?

They are "obligated"? Should they do it because it "feels" good?

Well, besides the fact that it's the right thing to do, one could argue that a good healthy workforce is a more productive workforce, thus it's in the best intrest of the company to keep thier workers healthy and happy.

Trying to make a point by being "personal"?

Even if you were right, your debate skills suck.

Hey man, not getting personal at all, just letting you know that rediculous bullshlt fantasy land crap you believe has no place in the real world.

So, what, you hate him a a president, beecause of what he did as govenor?

And shouldn't you also *gasp* hate every govenor that came after him for not recifying the situation? Or is it just more fun to blame the person who started the problem, and not those who did nothing to fix it?

I didn't like him as a person, regardless of what his occupation was. And come to think of it, you're right. All of the govenors after him have been slimebags also.

Like google and nut theories are going to shine light on situations?

Well then, don't expect me to believe any of the baloney you post if you don't have the skill to find sources for it. I asked you for a source on your rediculous claim that Hugo Chavez is trying to procure WMDs, and you haven't come up with one. Go find me a source, back up what you claim.

Gorjirus

September 20th, 2007, 05:08 PM

eah it' clear on what it does, but not to who it applies to. That's the beef I have with it.

I thought you said it applies to everyone? That's pretty clear cut.

Ok, that's fine, you don't have to admit defeat or anything. Merely admit that laws like this effect you too, becasue they do.

What?

I don't have to "admit defeat", when you misread what I wrote.

And of course the law "affects" me, because it applies to everyone. Every law that applies to me, "affects" me.

Just not caring is key.

I'm saying why didn't we use diplomacy with Iraq, like we did with North Korea? Don't say Iraq wasn't cooperating with the IAEA, becasue they were.

Them kicking people out was cooperating?

Does Venezulea have a nuclear program, or does it not? Does it have a biological/chemical weapons program, or does it not? Where is the source that told you they were looking to aquire such weapons? I assume it was a news story or governement report or whatnot? Give me a source, or I must assume you're just making this shlt up.

There you go misreading what I say! Maybe you need glasses.

I didn't say Venezuala is trying. Or that Chavez is trying.

I simply said he wants them/would like to have them.

And if you need a source to verify that, you must be the one that's naive.

You're really niave, you know that?

And you're paranoid. Does that make us even?

You make it sound like if we raise the minimum wage, suddenly all these companies are going to automatically go out of business. You're forgeting that jobs that pay the minimum aren't the kind you can ship overseas - you can't outsource a guy cleaning toilets at Taco Bell. The companies that already pay someone a decent wage aren't effected by this. When was the last time you saw a McDonalds go out of business becasue they had to pay thier workers too much? You haven't, because it doesn't happen.

Well, if that was my tone, it wasn't what I was trying to get across. It's not eh business' going out of business, but they will be hiring less employees. Less employees with them doing more work.

Simple MicroEconomics.

Well, besides the fact that it's the right thing to do,

Right thing to do?

Love to see if Doc actually replies to that.

that a good healthy workforce is a more productive workforce, thus it's in the best intrest of the company to keep thier workers healthy and happy.

I'd give 'em more sick days. Keeps the healthy healthy and everyone happy.

Plus, alot of doctors are cheaper without Insurance.

Hey man, not getting personal at all, just letting you know that rediculous bullshlt fantasy land crap you believe has no place in the real world.

Yeah, like insulting my home, family, and mother aren't insulting? Sure.

Fantasy Land Crap? Even if that's what it was, its no different on the spectrum then your Doom and Gloom Paranoid view.

It balances out.

I didn't like him as a person, regardless of what his occupation was. And come to think of it, you're right. All of the govenors after him have been slimebags also.

There you go. At least now your consistent.

Well then, don't expect me to believe any of the baloney you post if you don't have the skill to find sources for it. I asked you for a source on your rediculous claim that Hugo Chavez is trying to procure WMDs, and you haven't come up with one. Go find me a source, back up what you claim.

Actually, what I "claim" doesn't need sources, especially since I never claimed Hugo is trying to procure WMD's.

Hawanja

September 20th, 2007, 08:40 PM

I thought you said it applies to everyone? That's pretty clear cut.

Look, you're doing this on purpose. I've made my point here like ten times, I've yet to see you say anything intelligent here.

And of course the law "affects" me, because it applies to everyone. Every law that applies to me, "affects" me.

Thank you, thank you. Now was that hard? Damn.

Them kicking people out was cooperating?

Maybe you're referring to the inspectors being thrown out in 1998? Let's see what Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (http://www.fair.org/activism/powell-inspectors-update.html) has to say about that:

Hundreds of FAIR activists wrote to the Times after a recent report (9/29/03) repeated as fact a charge by Secretary of State Colin Powell that weapons inspectors were thrown out of the country in 1998. According to the Times, "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in a television appearance today, noted that the Iraqi leader threw weapons inspectors out in 1998, making it more difficult for intelligence agencies to get hard information." In fact, as FAIR's action alert pointed out, the inspectors were not kicked out, but were removed by team leader Richard Butler right before an American bombing campaign. The Times had corrected the same error three years earlier (2/2/00).

Go find a link for me that shows Iraq kicking out the inspectors, prior to the 2003 invasion. I know you don't know how to use Google, just try real, real hard.

(insert dancing banana "pizzowned" gif here)

I didn't say Venezuala is trying. Or that Chavez is trying.

I simply said he wants them/would like to have them.

Actually, what I "claim" doesn't need sources, especially since I never claimed Hugo is trying to procure WMD's.

Nice backtracking there bro. You cited that as a reason as to why Bush, if he were a "warmonger" like I said he was, would invade them. I asked for evidence of this claim, but instead of supplying such evidence, you claim I misread what you typed. Baloney.

And if you need a source to verify that, you must be the one that's naive.

Then I must be niave, becasue I want a source. Give me the source of this lie. Tell me why exactly you think he wants weapons of mass destruction? Did you think this baloney up all by yourself, or like do you have a team of super monkeys randomly hitting keys on the full-o-crap-o-tron to produce this garbage?

Yeah, like insulting my home, family, and mother aren't insulting?

Hey man, I was completely respectful at the begining of this little debate. You're the one who escalated the flame war buddy, not me. Look, it's not my fault everything you believe in is fasle and you can't back anything up.

Well, if that was my tone, it wasn't what I was trying to get across. It's not eh business' going out of business, but they will be hiring less employees. Less employees with them doing more work.

That happens regardless of what wages are, I've seen it first hand. And it doesn't happen at Burger King.

You work on a farm, right? Do you pay your day laborers minimum wage? Do any of the farms in the area hire day laborers? Do they pay them minimum wage? Are any of these farms going to be hiring less people now, soley becasue the minium wage has gone up?

Like I keep telling you, back up what you say with some facts. That's how one "debates," you know, that skill you said I lacked but at which I seem to be stomping all over you at.

Plus, alot of doctors are cheaper without Insurance.

This is another example of that "Fantasy Land Crap" I said you lived in. Either that, or you must not have ever gone to the doctor for something serious.

Btw, still waiting for your explaination of why exactly a large multinational shouldn't provide health insurance.

Kaiser Kronos

September 20th, 2007, 08:50 PM

This is another example of that "Fantasy Land Crap" I said you lived in. Either that, or you must not have ever gone to the doctor for something serious.

Btw, still waiting for your explaination of why exactly a large multinational shouldn't provide health insurance.

Gor, he's right. Have you even heard how expensive medical bills are? Most doctors here won't touch you without insurance! And the average medical bills of today would break a poor family. Hawanja's right, that is fantasy land stuff.

As for Chavez, he's just another in a long line of Latin American leaders disgrunted with the Northern Colossus's endless fixation on a small hunk of land armed to the teeth and completly and totally ignoring the Latin American leaders, as it has been ever since we started on the path to superpower. The Latin American nations have real grievances against us, and Chavez may be a total nimwit and buffoon, but he speaks to those old wounds, and as a result has the ear of most Latin Americans.

Hawanja: At least in this topic, Gor's never claimed Chavez has sought WMDs. Checked the whole thing. It was you who brought up the WMD business.

Zigra

September 20th, 2007, 09:14 PM

Doctors are cheaper without insurance? Uh, Gor, you must live in a much better part of the country than I do, because I know for sure that isn't true where I live.

Cole Deschain

September 20th, 2007, 09:19 PM

...

Gor, I don't know how ANYONE can defend our healthcare system.

Seeing as how my Uncle Tim, who served in Vietnam, came home to eventually die of melanoma that could have been prevented if he'd been able to afford treatment.

Lotta good the VA hospital did him.
Lotta good not being able to PAY for better care did him.

Gorjirus

September 20th, 2007, 10:06 PM

Look, you're doing this on purpose. I've made my point here like ten times, I've yet to see you say anything intelligent here.

Yeah, I guess what you say isn't intelligent (since I just said what you said).

Thank you, thank you. Now was that hard? Damn

lol

When did I ever say it doesn't apply to me?

I know you don't know how to use Google

While I'm looking, a thought occured: If you hate corporations/business so much, why do you like Google so much? They are one of the fastest growing business', and have the most chance to become a huge hulking monopoly.

Nice backtracking there bro. You cited that as a reason as to why Bush, if he were a "warmonger" like I said he was, would invade them. I asked for evidence of this claim, but instead of supplying such evidence, you claim I misread what you typed. Baloney.

*laughs*

It's not backtracking when I repeat what I say.

Hey man, I was completely respectful at the begining of this little debate. You're the one who escalated the flame war buddy, not me. Look, it's not my fault everything you believe in is fasle and you can't back anything up.

1) It's not a flame war.

2) How did I escalate it?

That happens regardless of what wages are, I've seen it first hand. And it doesn't happen at Burger King.

Wait, what are you saying doens't happen? The part you agreed with, or the part of having less jobs?

Because if its the later, its because it just recently happened.

Like I keep telling you, back up what you say with some facts. That's how one "debates," you know, that skill you said I lacked but at which I seem to be stomping all over you at.

Wait wait wait.

You're asking me to back up basic economic principles? Because what, you don't beleive me?

This is much more fun.

This is another example of that "Fantasy Land Crap" I said you lived in. Either that, or you must not have ever gone to the doctor for something serious.

lol

Never said it was affordable, but cheaper.

Because (in apparently "Fantasy Land Crap") doctors, when paid up front in cash, give a discount. Thus, its cheaper.

Btw, still waiting for your explaination of why exactly a large multinational shouldn't provide health insurance.

And the summary of your reasons why they should is "It's the "right" thing to do".

Gor, he's right. Have you even heard how expensive medical bills are? Most doctors here won't touch you without insurance! And the average medical bills of today would break a poor family. Hawanja's right, that is fantasy land stuff.

You people need to read. Cheaper =/= affordable.

And the reply would be the same for Cole and Zigra.

Cole Deschain

September 20th, 2007, 10:34 PM

Because (in apparently "Fantasy Land Crap") doctors, when paid up front in cash, give a discount. Thus, its cheaper.

Which means NOTHING if you can;t afford it in the first place, now does it?

Let's see you pay for chemotherapy out of pocket.

Gorjirus

September 20th, 2007, 10:37 PM

^Never said it did mean anything.

And trust me Cole, you are preaching to the choir.

Raptor

September 21st, 2007, 12:23 AM

So, you're telling me farmers, as a whole, do not protest anything? What about these chicken farmers then:

Chicken Farmers Protest Anti-terror Rules (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/22/terror/main3194196.shtml)Let's consider the chicken farmers and their propane. Might as well look at our local proposal that scrap metal, druggists and pawn/resale stores enter their sales and purchases in a data base readily accessible to law enforcement. The latter has to do with meth manufacture, copper thefts and general thievery.
It's about time the Feds are realizing what all you can do with the most innocent-appearing stuff. :sarcasm: Is the "war on terror" one of those PR-type slogans intended to get everyone's patriotic juices flowing but not to their brains? "Homeland Security" - What's the matter with Department of Defense? Not PC enough?

BTW, what's the 5th got to do with health insurance? Want to get ticky? Arrest anyone who speaks up for aiding and abetting illegal aliens. And that does include HIRING them. They have their own topic but "universal/minimum health care" doesn't. Anyone might have any answers, go start a new topic.

Even better, how about we have some current events DEBATES? Name a topic WHICH YOU MUST STICK TO, those interested in participating post and ONLY they take part in the exchange. An accompanying thread can present questions, feedback, etc. If our Presidential candidates can handle it, I think some of you all can too.

Hawanja

September 21st, 2007, 01:14 PM

When did I ever say it doesn't apply to me?

Well, you said this:

You go around buying lunches for terrorists? No?

Then there isn't much of a problem.

and this:

You kidding? My family? Protesting? I laugh. My family is a bunch of rural farmers, who for the most part could care less about foriegn policy.

My friends? lol

Oh, and no, I wouldn't protest. I have no problem with pulling out and letting the ME kill each other. IMO, that would be an excellent idea if we just pulled all of our troops back, formed a "defensive" border around the ME, and let them do whatever they want to each other

Which tells me that you have no problem with this law as it doesn't apply to you, becasue you don't protest. Unless you meant something else by saying that? 'Cause that's not how it reads.

Actually, I found a source for you. They even have satillite photos:

http://www.newsmutiny.com/pages/World/Venezuela.htm

http://www.newsmutiny.com/pics/venezuela.jpg

You were right. I guess we better invade them then. Damn the liberal media for burying this story!

While I'm looking, a thought occured: If you hate corporations/business so much, why do you like Google so much? They are one of the fastest growing business', and have the most chance to become a huge hulking monopoly.

That's called "begging the question," where you ask a question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, as a way of making the other guy look bad. You know, debate skills and all.

Anyway, substitute the search engine of your choice then.

It's not backtracking when I repeat what I say.

You're saying you meant one thing when what you wrote implied another.

See, you said this:

Invading one country, then scrambling to cover your *** doesn't count as warmongering. If they were, we would have already gotten Iran, possibly North Korea (though, *gasp*, that was solved without violence!), and Venezuala.

And yes, I did bring up wmds first, becasue that's the phoney-baloney reason we started this war in the first place - my point was that there's no reason to think Venezulea has them. To which you replied:

Actually, it has more to do with him wanting weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that he in destroying free speech to the extreme of shutting down a tv station pisses me off.

Well then, if you didn't mean to say that Venezula has nuclear/chem bomb program, what then exactly did you mean to say? That you just "think" he wants them, for some reason? Tell me then why you think that.

Wait, what are you saying doens't happen? The part you agreed with, or the part of having less jobs?

Well, what I mean is that the type of jobs that have been lost over the last eight years tend to be either manufacturing job or jobs in the tech industry (IT tech people, programers, etc) both of which usually do not pay minimum wage. Those are the jobs that are being shipped overseas, not the guy working at a car wash or who sacks fries at Wendys. The Mcdonalds, Taco Bell people, hotel busboys, car wash guys, etc, those people aren't losing thier jobs, and paying them an extra $80 a week (which is what this amounts to) isn't going to break anyone's bank.

I don't know what the laws are in your state, but here since you get overtime and benefits for work over 40 hours a week, then no place such as these actually lets you work 40 hrs. If need be, you'll get something like 39.5 hours, just so they don't have to pay you overtime (and benefits.) So just remember these are part time jobs as well. In California this is near universal in every place that pays minimum wage. This is relevant in the fact that these companies abuse laws such as these to cut costs, when if they were to actually pay thier people decent wages in the first place they'd retain a staff for more than three months and save more money in retraining costs in the long run.

1) It's not a flame war.

2) How did I escalate it?

Ok, ok, I'm sorry I was mean to you. Dang.

You're asking me to back up basic economic principles? Because what, you don't beleive me?

Prove me wrong, man. I say that jobs that pay minimum wage do not go away when the minium wage is increased by small amounts, you say they do. Show me some evidence of your claim. Go find something that tells me why I should believe you.

And the summary of your reasons why they should is "It's the "right" thing to do".

Apparently, you missed the sentance immediately after that:

one could argue that a good healthy workforce is a more productive workforce, thus it's in the best intrest of the company to keep thier workers healthy and happy.

I mean do me the courtesy of reading my responses all the way through at least.

Never said it was affordable, but cheaper.

Because (in apparently "Fantasy Land Crap") doctors, when paid up front in cash, give a discount. Thus, its cheaper.

Ahhh... so my broken arm that cost me $12,000 in hospital bills only would have cost me $11,999.50 if I would have paid in cash. Yeah, that's relevant.

Actually, this doesn't happen around where I live either. Like what several other board members have already said, in Los Angeles if you don't have insurance they won't even look at you unless it's a life or death situation, and then you end up owing them for the rest of you life. Maybe you've got a point, maybe I should move out to the sticks and start a pig farm of my own, then I could pay my doctor in cash and get everything cheaper.

Gorjirus

September 21st, 2007, 02:18 PM

Which tells me that you have no problem with this law as it doesn't apply to you, becasue you don't protest. Unless you meant something else by saying that? 'Cause that's not how it reads.

You mean you couldn't get that even though I'm covered/affected by the law, I could really give a damn about it because I know I would never do the junk that it mentions?

Actually, not even the last part. Just that I don't give a damn?

Actually, I found a source for you. They even have satillite photos:

http://www.newsmutiny.com/pages/World/Venezuela.htm

You were right. I guess we better invade them then. Damn the liberal media for burying this story!

Awe, how cute! Mini WMD's.

Bet they'll be all the rage next spring.

That's called "begging the question," where you ask a question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, as a way of making the other guy look bad. You know, debate skills and all.

And that's called avoiding the question all together.

Well then, if you didn't mean to say that Venezula has nuclear/chem bomb program, what then exactly did you mean to say? That you just "think" he wants them, for some reason?

Not my fault you go around taking meanings different from what I say.

I say he wants them, because he *gasp* does. Not that he has them, or menas to get them, just that he wants them.

Look at Chavez, and tell me that it is a wrong statement. That he simply wants/would like to have WMD.

Well, what I mean is that the type of jobs that have been lost over the last eight years tend to be either manufacturing job or jobs in the tech industry (IT tech people, programers, etc) both of which usually do not pay minimum wage. Those are the jobs that are being shipped overseas, not the guy working at a car wash or who sacks fries at Wendys. The Mcdonalds, Taco Bell people, hotel busboys, car wash guys, etc, those people aren't losing thier jobs, and paying them an extra $80 a week (which is what this amounts to) isn't going to break anyone's bank.

I don't know what the laws are in your state, but here since you get overtime and benefits for work over 40 hours a week, then no place such as these actually lets you work 40 hrs. If need be, you'll get something like 39.5 hours, just so they don't have to pay you overtime (and benefits.) So just remember these are part time jobs as well. In California this is near universal in every place that pays minimum wage. This is relevant in the fact that these companies abuse laws such as these to cut costs, when if they were to actually pay thier people decent wages in the first place they'd retain a staff for more than three months and save more money in retraining costs in the long run.

*sigh*

Hold on, let me wipe the pig manure off of my Microeconomics book.

Ah, here we are. The basic principle of Supply and Demand. Minimum is a price floor. When price floors are above the point of equilibrium, it creates a surplus of labor as the demand for jobs goes down, thus increasing unemployment.

Unless of course, the wage is below the point of equilibrium, at which case it is still bad, as demand out strips supply and everyone is paid crap. Kind of like where we've been since whenever you mentioned the last times wages were raised.

Ok, ok, I'm sorry I was mean to you. Dang.

Awe, a sarcastic apology that wasn't asked for!

You're just trying to flatter me now.

Prove me wrong, man. I say that jobs that pay minimum wage do not go away when the minium wage is increased by small amounts, you say they do. Show me some evidence of your claim. Go find something that tells me why I should believe you.

How about the above explanation?

I mean do me the courtesy of reading my responses all the way through at least.

Oh, I did read that. And it still comes down to "happy feel good". Especially when the same solution could be reached by more sick days. Otherwise, they would still be at work, sick.

Ahhh... so my broken arm that cost me $12,000 in hospital bills only would have cost me $11,999.50 if I would have paid in cash. Yeah, that's relevant.

Actually, this doesn't happen around where I live either. Like what several other board members have already said, in Los Angeles if you don't have insurance they won't even look at you unless it's a life or death situation, and then you end up owing them for the rest of you life. Maybe you've got a point, maybe I should move out to the sticks and start a pig farm of my own, then I could pay my doctor in cash and get everything cheaper.

Not my fault California gives you the shaft.

If you hate it so much, who don't you move and start your own pig farm? You make it sound so nice.

Hawanja

September 21st, 2007, 05:11 PM

You mean you couldn't get that even though I'm covered/affected by the law, I could really give a damn about it because I know I would never do the junk that it mentions?

You don't care when they take away your rights, I do care. This is the difference between us.

And in case you still don't understand, my whole point is that the law is written in such a way that you could be busted under it, by unknowningly voilating it, regardless if you're so cheap as to never buy a friend lunch.

And that's called avoiding the question all together.

You mean like what you do right here:

Really? I'm having a hard time talking to you.
And I've had conversations with Doc for goodness sakes.

and here:

Wait wait wait.
You're asking me to back up basic economic principles? Because what, you don't beleive me?
This is much more fun.

and here:

Awe, how cute! Mini WMD's.
Bet they'll be all the rage next spring.

It seems to me that whenever you don't have an answer for something you just try to crack a joke and forget about it. Oh by the way, I'm still waiting for an explaination of why a large corporation shouldn't supply health insurance for thier people. And your source for Venezula's WMDS.

I say he wants them, because he *gasp* does. Not that he has them, or menas to get them, just that he wants them.
Look at Chavez, and tell me that it is a wrong statement. That he simply wants/would like to have WMD.

Well, how do you know he does? Are you just reading his mind, or going through his emails, or what? Becasue it's not much of a reason for us to invade them just becasue you and only you thinks he wants nuclear bombs.

Hold on, let me wipe the pig manure off of my Microeconomics book.

Hey remember that avoiding the question thing, you're doing it again.

Tell me the last time the demand for unskilled, minimum wage jobs went down. The last time they raised the minimum wage eight years ago were there suddenly less fast food resturants hiring? Were people getting laid off from Starbucks? Did your local car wash suddenly go out of business? Is $7.25 an hour above the equalibrium price? Somehow I don't think so.

It's the jobs for skilled people that are being shipped overseas, not the janitors and taco expeditors.

Oh, I did read that. And it still comes down to "happy feel good". Especially when the same solution could be reached by more sick days.

Apparently you didn't read through the whole response, so let me repeat it - a healthy workforce is more productive, makes the company more money and saves them money in lost time and sick days in the long run. Becasue contrary to what you're saying, sick days actually cost a company money, even if they're not paid (through lost productivity.)

Not my fault California gives you the shaft.
If you hate it so much, who don't you move and start your own pig farm? You make it sound so nice.

It's all states that give you the shaft, except apparently in yours, where it's somehow magically cheaper if you pay in cash. Yeah that makes sense.

Gorjirus

September 21st, 2007, 09:28 PM

You don't care when they take away your rights, I do care. This is the difference between us.

You did know this from the beginning, yes?

And in case you still don't understand, my whole point is that the law is written in such a way that you could be busted under it, by unknowningly voilating it, regardless if you're so cheap as to never buy a friend lunch

Damn! That old lady I helped across the street was a dirty terrorist!

I'll get you octogenarian!!!!!!!!!

It seems to me that whenever you don't have an answer for something you just try to crack a joke and forget about it. Oh by the way, I'm still waiting for an explaination of why a large corporation shouldn't supply health insurance for thier people. And your source for Venezula's WMDS.

Wait, how was a statement and a picture a question?

And I'm sure I could find a fault with your other two quotes, but come on. A statement+picture =/= question.

And more sick days doesn't give you an answer?

Plus, hey, if you read what I say *hint hint*, I don't think I said they shouldn't, just that there is no reason for them to do so.

But don't quote me on that. ;)

But yeah. Sick days. Because giving them health insurance isn't going to get them back to work somehow quicker. Especially when what they would get with medical insurance (antibiotics) actually just makes the problem worse for the person, and everyone else.

Sick days are a wonderful thing.

Oh, and the WMD's you brought up? (Or was that a different topic?)

Well, how do you know he does? Are you just reading his mind, or going through his emails, or what? Becasue it's not much of a reason for us to invade them just becasue you and only you thinks he wants nuclear bombs.

How do you know he doesn't?

Other than I think I heard him say he wants them, and the fact it is quite a logical assumption that he would want them..

Plus, when did I ever say I wanted to invade Venezuala? Or that we should?

You aren't putting words in my mouth again, are you Hawanja?

Hey remember that avoiding the question thing, you're doing it again.

Wait, a joke means you disregard the answer?

Tell me the last time the demand for unskilled, minimum wage jobs went down. The last time they raised the minimum wage eight years ago were there suddenly less fast food resturants hiring? Were people getting laid off from Starbucks? Did your local car wash suddenly go out of business? Is $7.25 an hour above the equalibrium price? Somehow I don't think so.

It's the jobs for skilled people that are being shipped overseas, not the janitors and taco expeditors.

*sigh*

So, in order for a proven well known economic principle to be proven correct, for you, you need me to give you examples?

Plus, what kind of carwash has employees?

Apparently you didn't read through the whole response, so let me repeat it - a healthy workforce is more productive, makes the company more money and saves them money in lost time and sick days in the long run. Becasue contrary to what you're saying, sick days actually cost a company money, even if they're not paid (through lost productivity.)

Actually, I did read it. And medical insurance, isn't going to make the people more productive. Things that make you miss work, aren't going to me miracously healed by medical insurance.

It's all states that give you the shaft, except apparently in yours, where it's somehow magically cheaper if you pay in cash. Yeah that makes sense.

Not my fault Pig Farm State's doctors are completely awesome like that.