Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Blunt Amendment DefeatedFollow

#77 Mar 02 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Where? Show me exactly what exemptions exist, in writing, and the entire set of requirements to qualify for them.

I already did. The fact that you refuse to accept them doesn't bother me in the slightest. The fact that you misread the section about discretion goes the opposite and mildly amuses me.

Here's the thing though: I don't especially care if you're not convinced. You're the one making the case that this law is travesty of freedom and all that. I've read the materials and am satisfied with how it's being handled. I'm not concerned if you're not and (a) don't care if you want to go on about how this just proves whatever and (b) am not especially worried that anyone else is going to think I didn't provide sufficient material to back my position.

So have fun. Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Mar 02 2012 at 9:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Where? Show me exactly what exemptions exist, in writing, and the entire set of requirements to qualify for them.

I already did. The fact that you refuse to accept them doesn't bother me in the slightest. The fact that you misread the section about discretion goes the opposite and mildly amuses me.


The quote you provided earlier does not say what exactly churches are exempt from, nor does it say that all churches and church organizations will get exemptions. And it doesn't say that DHHS *will* grant them, much less that it will *always* grant them. Just that it can.

Quote:
You're the one making the case that this law is travesty of freedom and all that.


And you're the one saying that it's not. I've clearly outlined my reasons for believing that the mandates represent an unnecessary violation of our rights, doubly so in the case of some religious organizations. In response, you've just kinda hand waved it all away with some vague language that has no legally binding force and doesn't guarantee anything (and it certainly doesn't protect individuals from the manage either, which is still problematic).

Quote:
I'm not concerned if you're not and (a) don't care if you want to go on about how this just proves whatever and (b) am not especially worried that anyone else is going to think I didn't provide sufficient material to back my position.



Um... Ok. I'm just writing my analysis of the effect of the failure to pass the proposed amendment. If you recall, my initial point was that by failing to pass the amendment, the case for the unconstitutionality of the mandates in the health care law just got a lot stronger. You're the one who seems to have wanted to embark on some grand argument about how the mandates aren't really important because some people, in some situations, might be able to get exemptions.


You're obviously free to disagree with me, but I think the very fact that we're talking about handing out exemptions is the first sign that something is pretty wrong with the law itself. We shouldn't be relying on exemptions to try to prevent a law from violating our rights. IMO, that's just backwards. How about we not write laws that violate them in the first place? Make the exemptions for those who want to have the government tell them what to do instead of the other way around? ****. Let's make it an opt in system. So anyone who doesn't mind paying into some kind of public health care fund is free to do so.


We know that wont work though, hence the mandates. And also, at the risk of being obvious, why the mandates are wrong.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Mar 02 2012 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I've clearly outlined my reasons for believing that the mandates represent an unnecessary violation of our rights, doubly so in the case of some religious organizations. In response, you've just kinda hand waved it all away with some vague language that has no legally binding force and doesn't guarantee anything

You don't understand law or government. We know. You've proven that adequately by getting aspect after aspect of the law wrong. You don't need to keep driving the point home.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Mar 04 2012 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Given "Life" is the first fundamental Right, theoretically, in your constitution (does it count if it's just in the preamble? Where is it?) it blows my mind that you are a taxing-and-service providing nation (at least to a minimal extent) and yet the first thing you don't publicly provide, after a standing Defence Force, is healthcare.

Defence, Healthcare, Education, Subsistance Welfare to those who cannot work or are out of work and provenly jobseeking (the means to buy food, water and shelter). They are the fundamental group foundations of a civilised society. Clean water, clean air, electricity, gas, transportation, communication infrastructure. Most other things are less imperative than these.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#81 Mar 04 2012 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Come on this is America, why let taxes support that when you can pay out rageous sums of money to have it privatized.

Yay Capitalism!.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#82 Mar 04 2012 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
I came here to make a pot joke.....something about the joint committee defeating the blunt amendment......
Then there was ranting about religious hospitals getting the shaft. Then there was hairy hippies. I don't know why I come here.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#83 Mar 05 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,660 posts
Kills time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Mar 05 2012 at 4:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Given "Life" is the first fundamental Right, theoretically, in your constitution (does it count if it's just in the preamble? Where is it?) it blows my mind that you are a taxing-and-service providing nation (at least to a minimal extent) and yet the first thing you don't publicly provide, after a standing Defence Force, is healthcare.


Because "life" and "health care" are two different (although related) things. And because having a right to something is not the same as requiring that someone must provide that thing for you. The right to life is the right not to have your life taken from you. It does not require that others provide you with something to make your life "better".

Quote:
Defence, Healthcare, Education, Subsistance Welfare to those who cannot work or are out of work and provenly jobseeking (the means to buy food, water and shelter). They are the fundamental group foundations of a civilised society.


Wrong. Those are the foundations of a socialist society. And socialists have conveniently labeled their form of government "civilized", but it does not make it so.

The key word you're missing (even though you spoke of "rights" earlier) is: Liberty. That's the more important thing here. A society in which the citizens have as much liberty as possible will be a better society in every way to one which calls civilized the act of empowering its government to buy the good will of the people at the expense of their own liberty.


Quote:
Clean water, clean air, electricity, gas, transportation, communication infrastructure. Most other things are less imperative than these.



I'd put liberty ahead of all of those.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Mar 05 2012 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
speaking of killing time.

Quote:
Wrong. Those are the foundations of a socialist society. And socialists have conveniently labeled their form of government "civilized", but it does not make it so.


Smiley: lol
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#86 Mar 05 2012 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Seriously Ari, didn't you know that if your body can't stop the knife, it isn't a violation of your right to life? It's your own fault for being so weak.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#87 Mar 05 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Clean water, clean air, electricity, gas, transportation, communication infrastructure. Most other things are less imperative than these.



I'd put liberty ahead of all of those.


So long as you still get to have all those nice things along with it, of course.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#88 Mar 05 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Clean water, clean air, electricity, gas, transportation, communication infrastructure. Most other things are less imperative than these.



I'd put liberty ahead of all of those.


a) Come back and talk to us after drinking water contaminated with sewage for a week or two.

b) What the **** does Liberty even mean to you if it doesn't include the basics required to live a happy and healthy life? I mean seriously. If you think that "Liberty" doesn't include clean water and breathable air - what good is it?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 4:12pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#89 Mar 05 2012 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,660 posts
He said that he believes liberty goes before clean water and breathable air, not that water and air don't belong or anything along those lines. He's stupid and the arguments he copies from other people don't make much sense in reality, but at least read them.

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 7:14pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#90 Mar 05 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
Note that garbaji never said he'd trade liberty for those things.Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#91 Mar 05 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
gbaji wrote:
The right to life is the right not to have your life taken from you.


idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Seriously Ari, didn't you know that if your body can't stop the knife, it isn't a violation of your right to life? It's your own fault for being so weak.


And you wonder why I continually talk about you failing (either deliberately or via a complete lack of reading comprehension) to even get onto the same page with regard to what I'm talking about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#92 Mar 05 2012 at 7:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Note that garbaji never said he'd trade liberty for those things.Smiley: schooled


I said I place liberty ahead of those things. The point being that when we make decisions we should be aware of the costs of the things we're deciding. The problem with liberal social policy is that they proceed as though there not only isn't a liberty cost to what they're doing, but that somehow the act of providing free education, health care, stronger environmental laws, etc is what actually gives people liberty. Those things are not liberty. And when we forget that, liberty is often the price of those things.


I believe in a balanced approach that takes into account that cost of liberty. It's not all or nothing to me. I know that many people seem to want to frame it that way, but that's just not the case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Mar 05 2012 at 7:39 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
Gbaji only believes in corporate socialism. Gotta have those fat oil subsidies!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#94 Mar 05 2012 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
And I fail to see how providing health care for all of your citizens in any way impedes liberty.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#95 Mar 05 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Note that garbaji never said he'd trade liberty for those things.Smiley: schooled


I said I place liberty ahead of those things. The point being that when we make decisions we should be aware of the costs of the things we're deciding. The problem with liberal social policy is that they proceed as though there not only isn't a liberty cost to what they're doing, but that somehow the act of providing free education, health care, stronger environmental laws, etc is what actually gives people liberty. Those things are not liberty. And when we forget that, liberty is often the price of those things.


I believe in a balanced approach that takes into account that cost of liberty. It's not all or nothing to me. I know that many people seem to want to frame it that way, but that's just not the case.


Right. Make a list of requirements for a safe, stable and prosperous society. List it from, say "not getting blown up" to "free candy for everyone". Think of a slide rule and liberty is the sliding red bar. If "liberty" is at one extreme end of the slide rule you are doing it wrong.

Do you understand now?


BTW, there is no "right" to not being taxed at a higher rate. There is no "liberty" in lower taxes. It's taxation without representation that is a violation of your liberty. You have representation.



On a related note, please prove your rise from "sleeping in my car because I was that poor" to your current state, because I still don't believe that fairy tale.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#96 Mar 05 2012 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Quote:
Right. Make a list of requirements for a safe, stable and prosperous society. List it from, say "not getting blown up" to "free candy for everyone". Think of a slide rule and liberty is the sliding red bar. If "liberty" is at one extreme end of the slide rule you are doing it wrong.


So your outrageous military budget is in play for the man with scissors?


Quote:
BTW, there is no "right" to not being taxed at a higher rate. There is no "liberty" in lower taxes. It's taxation without representation that is a violation of your liberty. You have representation.


and increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't infringe on their liberty?

Are you a closet Liberal Gbaji?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 9:52pm by rdmcandie


SORRY BIJOU AND GBAJI, LEAVING THE LULZ, GOING TO BED. (yay for cheap pitcher mondays)

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 10:33pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#97 Mar 05 2012 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Right. Make a list of requirements for a safe, stable and prosperous society. List it from, say "not getting blown up" to "free candy for everyone". Think of a slide rule and liberty is the sliding red bar. If "liberty" is at one extreme end of the slide rule you are doing it wrong.


So your outrageous military budget is in play for the man with scissors?


Quote:
BTW, there is no "right" to not being taxed at a higher rate. There is no "liberty" in lower taxes. It's taxation without representation that is a violation of your liberty. You have representation.


and increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't infringe on their liberty?

Are you a closet Liberal Gbaji?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 9:52pm by rdmcandie

You're quoting bijou and responding to gbaji. Get the **** out of here until you **** weed wears off.
#98 Mar 05 2012 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Nadenu wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Right. Make a list of requirements for a safe, stable and prosperous society. List it from, say "not getting blown up" to "free candy for everyone". Think of a slide rule and liberty is the sliding red bar. If "liberty" is at one extreme end of the slide rule you are doing it wrong.


So your outrageous military budget is in play for the man with scissors?


Quote:
BTW, there is no "right" to not being taxed at a higher rate. There is no "liberty" in lower taxes. It's taxation without representation that is a violation of your liberty. You have representation.


and increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't infringe on their liberty?

Are you a closet Liberal Gbaji?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 9:52pm by rdmcandie

You're quoting bijou and responding to gbaji. Get the **** out of here until you **** weed wears off.


Everyone is a gbaji sock.

That's not a pleasant thought.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#99 Mar 05 2012 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Nadenu wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Right. Make a list of requirements for a safe, stable and prosperous society. List it from, say "not getting blown up" to "free candy for everyone". Think of a slide rule and liberty is the sliding red bar. If "liberty" is at one extreme end of the slide rule you are doing it wrong.


So your outrageous military budget is in play for the man with scissors?


Quote:
BTW, there is no "right" to not being taxed at a higher rate. There is no "liberty" in lower taxes. It's taxation without representation that is a violation of your liberty. You have representation.


and increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't infringe on their liberty?

Are you a closet Liberal Gbaji?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 9:52pm by rdmcandie

You're quoting bijou and responding to gbaji. Get the **** out of here until you **** weed wears off.


Everyone is a gbaji sock.

That's not a pleasant thought.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#100 Mar 05 2012 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Smiley: blush guess it was bedtime after all.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#101 Mar 05 2012 at 9:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Olorinus wrote:
b) What the **** does Liberty even mean to you if it doesn't include the basics required to live a happy and healthy life? I mean seriously. If you think that "Liberty" doesn't include clean water and breathable air - what good is it?


It does not "include" those things at all. In the same way that food does not include air, and poetry does not include dog. Those are things which may be important to us, but do not have to be especially linked. You seem to want to insist that if we don't have something, we can't have the other thing. But that's just not the case.

While I happen to believe that the greater liberty we have the greater chance we have of having a happy and healthy life, it's a gross mistake to assume that anything which might improve the happiness or health of one's life also increases their liberty. They are completely different things. Liberty does not "include" those things, nor does it require them.


What good is it? Liberty means we have the freedom to pursue those other things. You're trying to trade liberty *for* those other things, but the problem is that once you do that, you no longer really have them. I honestly think that most people don't get this. In the process of the government giving you health, happiness, education, housing, etc, it must infringe the liberties of the citizenry. The health care mandates are just one example of this. But the problem is that if you have health, happiness, education, housing, etc but *only* because the government gives them to you, do you really have them?

A government that is empowered to give you a thing is also empowered to take it away. While not perfect, what you have in a state of liberty is actually yours. The concept of liberty is of things not being taken from you, so what you have is yours and can't be taken. IMO, it's more important to have less, but know that what you have is actually yours, than to have more, but only because of the continual intervention of an authoritarian government.


Don't you agree?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 66 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (66)