GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-08-2012, 20:59   #281
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
The Preamble is not law.
It very clearly describes what they are doing and should do. The enumerated part later on describe the limits on what can be done.
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
G29Reload is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 21:00   #282
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Is that the "if it is consumed responsibly" clause of the Constitution?

Cannabis was cultivated here in 1776 and was consumed responsibly.
I guess its in "The right to keep and smoke cannabis shall not be infringed" clause.
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
G29Reload is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 21:01   #283
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Is that the "if it is consumed responsibly" clause of the Constitution?

Cannabis was cultivated here in 1776 and was consumed responsibly.
Slavery was legal and Women couldn't vote back then either.

We threw a fit of a Tea tax and then later taxed whiskey. things change.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 21:06   #284
certifiedfunds
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 43,880


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Slavery was legal and Women couldn't vote back then either.

We threw a fit of a Tea tax and then later taxed whiskey. things change.
Again, amendments. Please point me to the amendment that grants the fed this power.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 21:09   #285
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Again, amendments. Please point me to the amendment that grants the fed this power.
Please point to the Supreme Court decision saying the laws are unconstitutional

It works that way, in case you didn't know.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 21:24   #286
certifiedfunds
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 43,880


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Please point to the Supreme Court decision saying the laws are unconstitutional

It works that way, in case you didn't know.
I didn't think you could...
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 22:00   #287
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
In fact, there's an entire legal principle surrounding this question that has been seeing a resurgence, to the chagrin of the justice industry. It's called jury nullification. Jurors have the legal right to decide not only whether a law was broken but whether the law itself should exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jury_nullification

You are truly a disengenuous weasle in my opinion.

You can't even be honest about what you cite. I knew you were wrong and figure maybe you misread a complicated citation, but actually, there it was, the very second paragraph in your cited source. i guess the dope gives you a short attention span.

Tell you what, I'll higlight the parts you missed to give you a little help.


"A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment."

To spell it out for you, it isn't intended to allow 12 randomly selected individuals to decide whether or not a particular law is Constitutional or not. It is intended to protect a defendent in a case where the law is misapplied or doesn't fit the circumstances of the case before it. Now if it happens repeatedly it may affect the standing of the law. I know of no examples of this.

Given that there are people who will agree with the law on a jury and it akes a unanamous jury to conclude nullification, it is not some "undiscovered panacea for legalization" that you pretend it is.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 06:44   #288
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Funny YOU of all people trying to exert intellectual superiority, and especaially on Constitutional interpretation. I won't even bother to qiuestion you on the lack of knowledge you have displayed on this very topic in the past.
Did you post my lecture on the primary system yet? Or are you just going to continue to mischaracterize my statements and hope no one looks it up to verify?

Quote:
So, if you want to talk about legally accurate, has the Supreme Court struck down Any of the laws you are talking about, therefore making enforcement of them an illegal act?
WTF are you even talking about? The Preamble is not law, carries no weight of law and doesn't grant the government any powers nor restrict any other powers. I asked another poster to provide where in the Constitution the feds are granted the power to provide "public safety" and "orderly society". You said the Preamble. That's WRONG! The Preamble grants the government no right to either of those. Just admit it instead of doubling down on a bad argument and just confirming that you're clueless.

Quote:
Assuming the asnwer is "no" then they DO stand as Laws (you know, legally) ergo, and until SCOTUS says different you are out there with only your interpretation, and no legal leg to stand on.
NO THEY DON'T STAND AS LAWS! YOU CAN'T ARGUE THE PREAMBLE IN COURT! What part of this do you not understand? Im guessing all of it.

Is the Preamble considered law?
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q56.html
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 06:50   #289
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post
I guess its in "The right to keep and smoke cannabis shall not be infringed" clause.
Actually, it's the 10th Amendment, which says that all powers not expressly given to the federal government in Article I Section 8 (NOT THE PREAMBLE), are reserved to the states and the people.

You are aware that the Constitution doesn't grant people rights, such as the right to consume substances, correct? It restricts the government.
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 07:11   #290
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
You are truly a disengenuous weasle in my opinion.
My apologies for exposing the mountains of bull **** you post. Unfortunately I have more of a life than to follow the thousands of uninformed posts per month you generate.

Quote:
You can't even be honest about what you cite. I knew you were wrong and figure maybe you misread a complicated citation, but actually, there it was, the very second paragraph in your cited source. i guess the dope gives you a short attention span.

Tell you what, I'll higlight the parts you missed to give you a little help.


"A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment."

To spell it out for you, it isn't intended to allow 12 randomly selected individuals to decide whether or not a particular law is Constitutional or not. It is intended to protect a defendent in a case where the law is misapplied or doesn't fit the circumstances of the case before it. Now if it happens repeatedly it may affect the standing of the law. I know of no examples of this.
You don't know of any examples? Im shocked!

Here's an example from last month. Enjoy. New Hampshire just made the principle of jury nullification a statutory law for 2013, btw.

NH jury acquits rastafarian pot grower
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/ne...-pot-growing-r

Quote:
A jury unanimously acquitted Doug Darrell, a 59-year-old Rastafarian charged with marijuana cultivation, after his lawyer, Mark Sisti, argued that a conviction would be unjust in light of the fact that Darrell was growing cannabis for his own religious and medicinal use. More remarkably, Judge James O'Neill instructed the jury that "even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case."


Sometimes I don't think you even know what you're arguing for or against. Just arguing just to argue, even when you have no clue what the subject matter is.

Quote:
Given that there are people who will agree with the law on a jury and it akes a unanamous jury to conclude nullification, it is not some "undiscovered panacea for legalization" that you pretend it is.
Who said anything about a panacea for legalization? Your entire quoted post is a giant strawman argument and an uninformed and disjointed argument at that. Jury nullification allows a jury to decide whether a law is fair or should exist in the first place, regardless of the criminal facts alleged. Only legislators and judges can repeal laws. This is common knowledge. You're arguing against a statement that no one actually made.

Last edited by G19G20; 10-09-2012 at 07:12..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 08:09   #291
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
I've been avoiding wading into the drug legalization thing, because honestly these things kind of tire me out. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the legalization concept, but the way the arguments are packaged seem to be designed to turn off the very people the Libertarians are trying to persuade. For example, bringing up tobacco and alcohol are arguments for making those things illegal too, not for legalizing pot. It's a rhetorically childish gambit, kind of like saying "Hey, Sally's dad lets *her* ride a bike without a helmet!!!" Honestly, I would have more respect if the guy just said "yeah, I just want to get high and I don't want to go to jail." The other stuff just ends up sounding like rationalizations.

That said, let's take the 10A arguments, or that the Constitution is silent on the matter and therefore it is "permitted" (I hate that phrasing but I'm trying to be brief). The reality is that something can still be regulated even if there's an explicit protection in the Constitution for that activity. That's because the law and the courts recognize that a balance must be struck between government interests and constitutional rights.

For example, the Constitution has the Equal Protection clause, yet we have Affirmative Action which seems to run afoul of that clause. That's because of the judicial review standard of intermediate scrutiny. Government ostensibly has an important interest in expanding admissions opportunities to underserved groups, and the law is judged to be the least-intrusive way of doing that (not my argument, but that's the argument that won the day in 1976).

A lower standard is Rational basis, where the question is if the law is a reasonable way to pursue a legitimate end. So does government rationally believe that it has a legitimate interest in regulating drugs? To me the answer is yes (I think it's a rational argument, but that doesn't imply it's a -persuasive- argument). Is a blanket ban a reasonable way to pursue that interest? Well....that's the rub, isn't it?

The highest standard is strict scrutiny and that's generally used for laws impacting explicitly-protected rights. For example, laws having to do with freedom of speech are reviewed under strict scrutiny. The government must have a compelling interest and the law has to be the narrowest and least restrictive way to meet this interest. For example, it's against the law to blab about government secrets. There's a compelling interest (state secrets are, well, secret) and it's not only narrow (it applies to people who actually know secret stuff) but unrestrictive for the mass of people (not everyone knows secret stuff). To me this level of review wouldn't be justified for something like marijuana legalization, mainly because smoking pot isn't a fundamental right. Of course, an argument that it is can be made in court which is what countrygun was (I think) trying to get at.

The main takeaway here is that just because something is protected (explicitly or implicitly) in the Constitution, it doesn't mean it's immune to any regulation whatsoever.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.

Last edited by Goaltender66; 10-09-2012 at 08:15..
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 08:29   #292
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Ron Paul's performance in the debate is a good metaphor for his campaign, absent.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 11:33   #293
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
My apologies for exposing the mountains of bull **** you post. Unfortunately I have more of a life than to follow the thousands of uninformed posts per month you generate.



You don't know of any examples? Im shocked!

Here's an example from last month. Enjoy. New Hampshire just made the principle of jury nullification a statutory law for 2013, btw.

NH jury acquits rastafarian pot grower
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/ne...-pot-growing-r





Sometimes I don't think you even know what you're arguing for or against. Just arguing just to argue, even when you have no clue what the subject matter is.



Who said anything about a panacea for legalization? Your entire quoted post is a giant strawman argument and an uninformed and disjointed argument at that. Jury nullification allows a jury to decide whether a law is fair or should exist in the first place, regardless of the criminal facts alleged. Only legislators and judges can repeal laws. This is common knowledge. You're arguing against a statement that no one actually made.
You are truly a dope addled boob, at least I hope your mental limits can be blamed on substance abuse.

"Straw Man"? You are a walking straw man. Your own words show how discnnected from reality you are.

directly above, you say,

"Jury nullification allows a jury to decide whether a law is fair or should exist in the first place, regardless of the criminal facts alleged."



Yet the source you cited yourself, in an attempted to BS your way int some gravitas, clearly says, and I will repeat it again for your edification,

"A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment."


Again that come from your own citation.

If it were up to A jury to decide on the suitablility of a laws existence, as you claim thusly,

"a jury to decide whether a law is fair or should exist in the first place"


Then the Founding Father's went to a heck of a lot of trouble to design the Supreme Court when their real intention was that the legislature, or any law making body, or the people by initiative petition, should be overruled by 12 people selected at random.

As to your frequent misstating of my words, I never said I didn't know of a case that was decided by jury nullification. But rare is the law itself that is changed by one nullification, and as rare, a masss of nullifications that cause reconsideration of the law.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 16:33   #294
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
I've given up on trying to read every post (bin busy at the range and reloading) to keep up and to try to point out the BS in them. I'd also probably loose a few "more" friends if I do. I'll just state here that the Constitution was never meant, and no one has yet to show me where it allows the government to do anything, i.e. outlaw anything that, without the intervention of other, does no harm to anyone other than to the person doing it. Yes there are laws. They ARE unconstitutional no matter what the Supreme court has said. Remember! The Scots have just ruled that Obomacare is legal because it is a TAX when it was argued that it's was not a tax buy the side the Scots found in-favor of. THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 10-09-2012 at 17:07..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 16:58   #295
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
To go back about 4 days and about 6 pages... as I predicted, it seems Douggmc has disappeared. And after I went and got all “civil” just for him/her.

It has really become hard for me to be civil with liberals. Yes, I know… as a moderator I’m supposed keep everyone inline and be the most civil of all. Well I wasn’t civil before I became a moderator and even though I try to stay as civil as I can… after years and years of arguing with liberals (I can spot them a mile away) I’ve lost all civility with them. I try! I really try!

Sooooooooooo, just to add to my “explanation” of my EXAMPLE of Obomacare. Here’s Ben Stein’s take on it.

No I don’t know if this is really a Ben Stein quote or not. But it’s dead on!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
Ben Stein hits the nail on the head...again!

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."
Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."
And that pretty much describes the "hypocrisy and idiocy" of liberals.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 10-09-2012 at 21:42..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 13:20   #296
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
To go back about 4 days and about 6 pages... as I predicted, it seems Douggmc has disappeared. And after I went and got all “civil” just for him/her.

It has really become hard for me to be civil with liberals. Yes, I know… as a moderator I’m supposed keep everyone inline and be the most civil of all. Well I wasn’t civil before I became a moderator and even though I try to stay as civil as I can… after years and years of arguing with liberals (I can spot them a mile away) I’ve lost all civility with them. I try! I really try!

Sooooooooooo, just to add to my “explanation” of my EXAMPLE of Obomacare. Here’s Ben Stein’s take on it.

No I don’t know if this is really a Ben Stein quote or not. But it’s dead on!!!!!!!!!!



And that pretty much describes the "hypocrisy and idiocy" of liberals.
Yeah .. sorry I have been busy and haven't fallen in line with your time frame expectations. I'll respond to you response now (see my next forthcoming post) ...
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 13:47   #297
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Yeah .. sorry I have been busy and haven't fallen in line with your time frame expectations. I'll respond to you response now (see my next forthcoming post) ...
Oh joy! I just can't wait.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 13:54   #298
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
First mistake… health care is not a right it’s a privilege.
Privilege or not ... is irrelevant. People WILL get healthcare whether they want it or not. Are you, an uninsured person, going to object to treatment when unconscious and in a coma from your stroke? Even if you were conscious, they wouldn't listen to you. It is entirely disconnected from their ability to pay or whether they are insured or not. It has always been that way (in modern U.S. / West) and WILL always be that way ... regardless of Obamacare existing or not. YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THIS

With that said, these costs WILL be incurred by healthcare providers and they WILL be passed on to ME. The ONLY pragmatic approach is ... How do we mitigate this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Who should pay you ask. The person using the service. If you don’t pay the bill you get sued.
You can't collect money where money doesn't exist. Doesn't matter how you feel or wish. Pragmatism vs ideology.

So ...there are two types of people that are uninsured:
1) The person that has the money to pay for it, but chooses not to
or
2) The person that does not have the money to pay for it (and obviously doesn't).

In both cases, they WILL both incur medical costs at some point. You can sue someone for 500,000 of healthcare costs, but it won't ever be collected. The person in scenario 2 is a no win for us. They can't afford insurance and will incur costs, they mostly will be too poor to be penalized by Obamacare. They are a wash regardless (always have been) However, even the average person in scenario 1 above, doesn't have the ability to pay a 500,000 hospital bill. What is the average net worth of middle class American? Even if sued, bankruptcy laws protect primary assets like homes. Therefore, the costs will be passed on to ME (again). How to mitigate this .... the mandate. Those that make bad decision to not insure themselves EVEN though they can, have to pay a tax penalty to mitigate costs. That keeps person in scenario 1 from infringing on my (and society at large) rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
It should work just like any other product or service works.
Healthcare is not like any other product or service ... no matter how much you want it to be or say it. I've outlined this logic in both my responses to you at this point. It is not complicated. EVERYBODY WILL GET MEDICAL CARE. Accept it ... and lets move on and get a plan to mitigate the costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
However, the bleeding heart liberals are mandating that the working people once again pay for the lame and lazy by mandating health care and levying a tax if you don’t have it. Are those that can’t pay for it being forced to pay or be taxed? NO! And that is the only reason for Obomacare… so the rest of us can pay for those that don’t pay.
YOU WERE PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY ... BEFORE OBAMACARE! Don't you get it? The only difference is ... without Obamacare, there are vast majorities of people who are getting healthcare at the time and place that is the most expensive and most costly. At MY expense! The mandate effectively says ... "you can't do that. You can't make a decision (not to be insured)because you are impacting other people (infringing on their rights)." If, hypothetically, it was a decision that ONLY impacted that individual choosing not to be insured, then go for it. But it doesn't. This should smack you virtually right up side the head. It is right up your alley ... "lame and lazy" folks forcing their will on us responsible folks by making us pay their bills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Now before you reply read this. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html it’s quite lengthy but you REALLY need to read it. The Federal Government has no business giving out or mandating charity. But the liberals just love their free stuff that others have to pay for.
I don't listen to people who make a living out making everything an ideological battle and a controversy. They are a LARGE part of the problem ... not a solution. Bill O'Reilly said it best the other day:

"You can make a lot of money by being an assassin," he said. "It doesn't matter: right wing or left wing. You go in and you're a hater -- radio, cable, in print, whatever -- you can get paid. And there's a people who do that. And they go in, they don't even believe half the stuff they say. ... Capitalism drives that. There are people -- Americans -- who want to hear hate."

That is what Lew Rockwell is. He is a right wing radio shock jock. Same as Rush, same as Boortz, same as Hannity, same as Beck, and so on (there are others on left too).

Get back to me with your own thoughts.

Last edited by douggmc; 10-10-2012 at 14:01..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 15:00   #299
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Am I going to refuse treatment? Wrong question! The questions should be why would/should anyone “expect” something they can’t pay for. Because they believe others should support them. It’s called liberalism/socialism.

My original statement was, “liberals keep forcing their will on people” You asked for an example. And here we are with you proving my point for me.

What you have proven is that you are a liberal/socialist that wants the rest of us to pay for those that don’t or won’t pay. Privilege or not doesn’t matter? Did you follow the link I provided? Did you read? The government has no right doling out charity or forcing me to pay for charity. You don’t care about Ben’s quote because it’s spot on and proves the illogic of your thought process.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Flintlocker and I’ll offer you the same remedy I offered Flintlocker. Do you know there is no law preventing you from sending in more taxes than you are required to pay? Since you’re so worried about those that can’t afford to purchase insurance why don’t you figure out how much tax you really owe without using loopholes and then sent in double that amount. If all the liberals did that just think how many people “YOU” could help. I’m willing to bet you won’t take me up on it. Why? Liberals are all for making other people pay but when asked to bear the burden themselves they come up with excuses and try to play the blame game. If you get sick or hurt it’s not my fault. Pay your own damn bills I pay mine.

You asked for an example and I gave you one. You asked for an explanation of that example and I gave you one. All you’ve done is prove I was right and try to convince me why it’s NECESSARY. What you have succeeded in doing is prove it a socialist program that you want everyone to pay for.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783

If the liberals keep imposing their will on the rest of us sooner or later there will be a revolt. And now we have come full circle.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 10-10-2012 at 15:09..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 15:08   #300
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,787
Why do you seem to be continuously attacking me personally or based on ideology when I'm addressing specifics in a (relatively) polite manner?

You have not responded or refuted my post at all. You simply are repeating a generalized ideological statement about others "forcing their will on people" ... when I've given you an outlined, logical argument that says it is for that EXACT reason that the mandate is needed (to prevent others from "forcing their will on people"). Frankly, to this point, I see your responses to me as a cop-out.

What realistic solution do you have beyond repeating the same ideology?

Do you accept the reality that people WILL get medical care regardless of Obamacare or whether it is a right or privilege (like they did before Obamacare was passed)? It isn't an ideological question ... simple question based on reality.

PS - I'm not flintlocker. Address me please. You seem to really have an infatuation with him or he really got under your skin. May I suggest you PM him if he won't debate you in a forum thread instead of inserting your past issues into this debate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Am I going to refuse treatment? Wrong question! The questions should be why would/should anyone “expect” something they can’t pay for. Because they believe other should support them. It’s call liberalism/socialism.

My original statement was, “liberals keep forcing their will on people” You asked for an example. And here we are with you proving my point for me.

What you have proven is that you are a liberal/socialist that wants the rest of us to pay for those that don’t or won’t pay. Privilege or not doesn’t matter? Did you follow the link I provided? Did you read? The government has no right doling out charity or forcing me to pay for charity. You don’t care about Ben’s quote because it’s spot on and proves the illogic of your thought process.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Flintlocker and I’ll offer you the same remedy I offered Flintlocker. Do you know there is no law preventing you from sending in more taxes than you are required to pay? Since you’re so worried about those that can’t afford to purchase insurance why don’t you figure out how much tax you really owe without using loopholes and then sent in double that amount. If all the liberals did that just think how many people “YOU” could help. I’m willing to bet you won’t take me up on it. Why? Liberal are all for making other people pay but when asked to bear the burden themselves they come up with excuses and try to play the blame game. If you get sick or hurt it’s not my fault. Pay your own damn bills I pay mine.

You asked for an example and I gave you one. You asked for an explanation of that example and I gave you one. All you’ve done is prove I was right and try to convince me why it’s NECESSARY. What you have succeeded in doing is prove it a socialist program that you want everyone to pay for.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783

Last edited by douggmc; 10-10-2012 at 15:15..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:28.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 683
154 Members
529 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31