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 11-09-2012, 16:14   #181
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Yet like gunhaver the jewelry maker they wont give their own money to help others.
Gunhaver has money for expensive firearms, brags about being well off, won't donate to charity, but expects others to help his GF.
__________________
Death twitches my ear. "Live," he says, "I am coming."
Virgil, Minor Poems

Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.
427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:17   #182
M 7
Senior Member
 
M 7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanVic View Post
The real hypocrisy would be the thread in general chat where certifiedfunds said he didn't want to pay any taxes at all, yet he wants to partake in all of the benefits of living in a civilized society. Talk about entitlement, certified is as entitled as they come.
You must've missed Gunhaver's post then. His was nothing less than an admission that so long as money was taken from others "who could afford it" to benefit him, that was alright and he'd happily tax others into homelessness to do so. Theft by proxy, even from "those who can afford it", is still theft.
__________________
For those who CCW:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
M 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:19   #183
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 41,194


Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
Gunhaver has money for expensive firearms, brags about being well off, won't donate to charity, but expects others to help his GF.
FWIW, I'm not totally convinced its a GIRLfriend.




.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:26   #184
Paul7
New Guy
 
Paul7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 13,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
FWIW, I'm not totally convinced its a GIRLfriend.




.
LOL, that would explain the illogical support for Obama, on a gun forum to boot.
__________________
I dont believe that people should be able to own guns. Obama to John R. Lott Jr. in a private conversation at the University of Chicago.

Last edited by Paul7; 11-09-2012 at 16:26..
Paul7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:29   #185
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
Gunhaver has money for expensive firearms, brags about being well off, won't donate to charity, but expects others to help his GF.
One suspects that his 'GF' is his...well...at any rate, the only thing that'll make "her" feel better is carpal tunnel surgery.
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:36   #186
M 7
Senior Member
 
M 7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by writwing View Post
I don't think so. The demographics have changed and the predominant cultures are takers not producers. They have been told that the white man has kept them down when in fact it is their own culture that has limited their progress. Has any group been hated more then the Jews? Yet their culture of hard work and education has allowed them to overcome the prejudice. And what about the Indians who come to this country and are successful? Arent they dark skinned too? Its their culture that allows them to succeed over prejudice.

The gop want you to succeed the dems want you on the teat.
Yep!

Of course, this is why class-warfare works so well. Those who have little to nothing (which has a significant racial component to it) will always desire to have what those who've worked for and amassed much for themsleves have.

Used to be that people would then use that desire to achieve it for themsleves through hard work and sacrifice. Now they stand with their hands out asking, "Where's mine?", even though they've not lifted so much as a finger to help themselves.

The Democrats perpetuate this by making it evermore difficult to succeed in business and making it easy to obtain welfare. After e few generations, folks simply acquiesce and go stand in the line for "their share" of the cut from the taxes paid by those still pulling the wagon.

The GOP wants to put an end to that destructive mindset, but that is gonna to be an up-hill battle at best since so many are hooked on the heroin that is welfare (or any other social justice entitlement).

Sadly, the Democrats have elected to exploit the baser human nature of looking for the easiest way out to the detriment of the culture and our Nation.

I actually see victory for the GOP in the longterm in the re-election of Zero since the Dems now hold all the cards and this little venture into Socialism is destined to fail. That'll be on their hands.

Remember Maggie Thatcher's evaluation of Socialism?

"The problem with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money."

That is not to say that it won't be painful for everyone, but the end result (in the long term, of course) will be the demise of the Demonrats for good. Maybe my kids will see that happen.


Soon, we'll be where Greece, Spain, Italy and most of the rest of the EuroZone are- the money runs out, no one will loan you anymore, and you have to stop spending money, not because you want to, but because you have nothing left to spend.
__________________
For those who CCW:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by M 7; 11-09-2012 at 16:40..
M 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:45   #187
M 7
Senior Member
 
M 7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
Gunhaver has money for expensive firearms, brags about being well off, won't donate to charity, but expects others to help his GF.
He is the Liberal poster-child for sure.

Charity/welfare for everyone who demands it. Money to fund it from those who've worked for it.

Like I said earlier- "Free stuff" ain't.
__________________
For those who CCW:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
M 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 17:52   #188
JohnnyReb
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
JohnnyReb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FEMA REGION III
Posts: 5,151
Perhaps a Poll tax would have prevented this? Or a literacy test?

Oh wait...
__________________
Confederate General Albert Pike: The struggle against oppressive authority is universal and eternal.
JohnnyReb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 19:53   #189
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
FWIW, I'm not totally convinced its a GIRLfriend.




.

Insinuate that the guy who doesn't consider being gay offensive might be gay. That'll teach me!

You want to call me an electrician or maybe a basket weaver? I'm not but I'll take no offense so whatever makes you giggle...
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 20:30   #190
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 41,194


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
One suspects that his 'GF' is his...well...at any rate, the only thing that'll make "her" feel better is carpal tunnel surgery.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 21:43   #191
IndianaMatt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Of course it does. That is the very definition of interstate commerce. As you know the original intent of the clause to was have the fedgov serve to FACILITATE interstate commerce so that the states could trade freely and efficiently amongst themselves.

Well, it is a contract....a legal document. You're a lawyer. Should contracts and legal documents be taken literally
No. Literalism will only get you so far.

In business, if every conceivable outcome were to be covered, simple contracts would be hundreds of pages long - the transaction costs (i.e., legal bills) would frustrate commerce completely. Ships sink. Crops fail. Workers strike. Managers steal.

That's why constitutional law (and contract law) have hundreds of thousands of cases on what do when when an issue isn't literally covered.

The Constitution is only the framework. But I suppose reasonable minds can differ. (And they do). Its a discussion you could have to nearly no end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
That's a shame. It really is. Shouldn't the focus be on bringing healthcare costs down so that doesn't happen? Government regulation can't and never has done that without creating shortages.....in ANY market.

The economics of healthcare revolve around Medicare. That's a fact. Its my business. Private insurers follow medicare's lead.
The pure "cost v. demand" argument cannot apply to healthcare. You and I will pay only so much for a new hunting rifle - at a certain point the cost would exceed demand. But to save ourselves from death, we'd pay anything. That's why pharma can price it however they want - people will always pay.

Its an example of an "inelastic demand."

Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
When the government unleashes the highest healthcare consuming demographic on a limited resource, and insulates them from the cost of their care, inflation occurs. Healthcare inflation took off when Medicare was enacted. Go look it up. Plain as day.

Technology doesn't drive up costs. Technology reduces costs in every other market.
I'm not sure what you mean by "unleashes the highest healthcare consuming demographic." Nearly all of us will need healthcare, sooner or later. Again, this supports my "inelastic demand" point because eventually we're all consumers in this market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post

...

I don't wish bankruptcy on anyone but, as you well know, this is precisely why it exists.

1. It isn't a "virtual guarantee". I'd prefer that it didn't happen at all though.

2. The problems plaguing the European healthcare systems are well documented. I don't think we need to revisit that here unless you really want to.
Sure, but I'm not pointing to Europe and saying their system is better. Technologically, ours is. But people should not be driven to ruin when their insurance peaks and they are still sick with cancer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
It works perfectly for the chart I showed. Once people get promised a handout they don't like giving it up. Just see all the "conservatives" on this board defend their Social Security check with passion. (that's actually a great example of why THEY are the reason Obama got re-elected, but I digress).

I understand your point and I'm more than happy to have a civil discussion of how to fix healthcare if you're interested. It really is quite simple.
You make good some good points and I see what you're saying. But the "let her die in the street if she can't pay for her healthcare" notion has no place in a civil society. Not everyone is looking for a handout, you know?

Last edited by IndianaMatt; 11-09-2012 at 21:44..
IndianaMatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 21:46   #192
barbedwiresmile
Unreconstructed
 
barbedwiresmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: "Our side of the barbed wire"
Posts: 9,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndianaMatt View Post
But I suppose you are a constitutional literalist, so we're not gonna agree on fed v. state roles.
lol...This is a comic term. Is this some new euphemism? What is the alternative to being a constitutional "literalist"? A constitutional illiteralist?

ETA: love the avatar... brick top...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada

Last edited by barbedwiresmile; 11-09-2012 at 21:48..
barbedwiresmile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 21:49   #193
IndianaMatt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile View Post
lol...This is a comic term. Is this some new euphemism? What is the alternative to being a constitutional "literalist"? A constitutional illiteralist?

ETA: love the avatar... brick top...
Most legal scholars recognize seven main methods of judicial decisionmaking: textual (literal), historical, functional, doctrinal, prudential, equitable, and natural, although they may differ on what each includes, and there is some overlap among them.

Here's a basic primer, if you care to learn more: http://www.constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.htm

The law reviews spill millions of gallons of ink each year writing on this subject. The brightest legal minds in the country remain divided.

Last edited by IndianaMatt; 11-09-2012 at 21:51..
IndianaMatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 22:00   #194
barbedwiresmile
Unreconstructed
 
barbedwiresmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: "Our side of the barbed wire"
Posts: 9,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndianaMatt View Post

The law reviews spill millions of gallons of ink each year writing on this subject. The brightest legal minds in the country remain divided.
oh yes. This is big money. Not to mention power structures on the line. We go to great lengths, indeed.

Meanwhile, New Yorkers are dark and cold as the state rationalizes their "legal" justification to enact price controls. Funny how economics ultimately trumps politics.

We had such a great premise: a government that existed to protect life, liberty and property. Enforce contracts. That sort of thing. Unprecedented. And now here we are, with 'schools of thought'.

Enjoy.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada
barbedwiresmile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 22:03   #195
IndianaMatt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile View Post
oh yes. This is big money. Not to mention power structures on the line. We go to great lengths, indeed.

Meanwhile, New Yorkers are dark and cold as the state rationalizes their "legal" justification to enact price controls. Funny how economics ultimately trumps politics.

We had such a great premise: a government that existed to protect life, liberty and property. Enforce contracts. That sort of thing. Unprecedented. And now here we are, with 'schools of thought'.

Enjoy.
Yep, where we were 200 years ago was great. Blacks were slaves, women couldn't vote, run for office, or inherit property, the natives weren't even human, and children could be forced to work 15 hour days in the mine...

THOSE were the days, man...

And then all these dumb lawyers show up and ruin everything.

Last edited by IndianaMatt; 11-09-2012 at 22:04..
IndianaMatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 22:06   #196
barbedwiresmile
Unreconstructed
 
barbedwiresmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: "Our side of the barbed wire"
Posts: 9,433
Yep...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada
barbedwiresmile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 22:44   #197
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 41,194


Quote:
Originally Posted by IndianaMatt View Post
No. Literalism will only get you so far.

In business, if every conceivable outcome were to be covered, simple contracts would be hundreds of pages long - the transaction costs (i.e., legal bills) would frustrate commerce completely. Ships sink. Crops fail. Workers strike. Managers steal.

That's why constitutional law (and contract law) have hundreds of thousands of cases on what do when when an issue isn't literally covered.

The Constitution is only the framework. But I suppose reasonable minds can differ. (And they do). Its a discussion you could have to nearly no end.



The pure "cost v. demand" argument cannot apply to healthcare. You and I will pay only so much for a new hunting rifle - at a certain point the cost would exceed demand. But to save ourselves from death, we'd pay anything. That's why pharma can price it however they want - people will always pay.

Its an example of an "inelastic demand."



I'm not sure what you mean by "unleashes the highest healthcare consuming demographic." Nearly all of us will need healthcare, sooner or later. Again, this supports my "inelastic demand" point because eventually we're all consumers in this market.



Sure, but I'm not pointing to Europe and saying their system is better. Technologically, ours is. But people should not be driven to ruin when their insurance peaks and they are still sick with cancer.



You make good some good points and I see what you're saying. But the "let her die in the street if she can't pay for her healthcare" notion has no place in a civil society. Not everyone is looking for a handout, you know?
Healthcare demand only becomes inelastic when someone else is paying for it. My point exactly.

Should we the taxpayers spend $1MM keeping some 85 year old person alive for an extra 6 weeks? I say no. That 85 year old's family may feel differently. If they have the $1MM to spend, let them. Do you think they will under those terms? Maybe. Maybe not.

I would not pay "anything" to stay alive because after I'm gone I have a family to think about. There is a maximum price for me to ensure my family will be provided for. Not inelastic....unless you're offering to pay......then I shall spare no expense.

So your next question will naturally be, what about my children. Yes, I would pay anything. When I ran out of money I might ask you to help. I won't force you to. I would sell my home and liquidate my assets. In the worst case, I suppose I would end up bankrupt. So be it.

Healthcare is a resource just like any other. It requires skill, labor, hard assets, consumable items. There is a limited amount. Some rationing mechanism must be in place because we can't give everything to everyone no matter how much you might wish it so.

So then the question becomes, how to ration? Or rather, how do we ration and respect individual liberty and free will at the same time?

When I say that in order to fix this we, as a society, must make the decision to let people die in the parking lot, I mean it. From a governmental standpoint we have to confront this. The reality of the American people is that we won't. The moment people start dying in the parking lot the American people will help them, freely. Just keep government out. Otherwise you get what we have now, which is skyrocketing inflation -- or -- you get resources allocated along political lines and shortages.

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 11-09-2012 at 23:02..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 22:45   #198
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 41,194


Quote:
Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile View Post
Yep...
Well done BWS. Very.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 22:56   #199
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 41,194


Quote:
Originally Posted by IndianaMatt View Post
No. Literalism will only get you so far.

In business, if every conceivable outcome were to be covered, simple contracts would be hundreds of pages long - the transaction costs (i.e., legal bills) would frustrate commerce completely. Ships sink. Crops fail. Workers strike. Managers steal.

That's why constitutional law (and contract law) have hundreds of thousands of cases on what do when when an issue isn't literally covered.

The Constitution is only the framework. But I suppose reasonable minds can differ. (And they do). Its a discussion you could have to nearly no end.



The pure "cost v. demand" argument cannot apply to healthcare. You and I will pay only so much for a new hunting rifle - at a certain point the cost would exceed demand. But to save ourselves from death, we'd pay anything. That's why pharma can price it however they want - people will always pay.

Its an example of an "inelastic demand."



I'm not sure what you mean by "unleashes the highest healthcare consuming demographic." Nearly all of us will need healthcare, sooner or later. Again, this supports my "inelastic demand" point because eventually we're all consumers in this market.



Sure, but I'm not pointing to Europe and saying their system is better. Technologically, ours is. But people should not be driven to ruin when their insurance peaks and they are still sick with cancer.



You make good some good points and I see what you're saying. But the "let her die in the street if she can't pay for her healthcare" notion has no place in a civil society. Not everyone is looking for a handout, you know?
Oh, and the Constitution does cover everything.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:10   #200
IndianaMatt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Oh, and the Constitution does cover everything.
So we can assume you're against any sort of federal government assistance in places hit by a Sandy or a Katrina, right?

Tell me those people should just figure it out on their own, not a single red cent do they get from the fed, and I'l be impressed with the depth of your conviction.

I'm especially curious how you (you live in Louisiana, if I recall) or your pal barbedwiresmile would say "No thanks" to federal aid after his house is washed away.

Last edited by IndianaMatt; 11-10-2012 at 01:13..
IndianaMatt 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 02:06.




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


Users Currently Online: 682
133 Members
549 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42