You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
Is that a real question or argument? If we follow that logic, then I should not be responsible for any programs institued by any politican I didn't vote for. So any bill not voted on or created by Ohio's two senators or the 6th congressional district allows me to claim exemption. And since I didn't vote for one of those senators, I guess I don't have to follow any bill he wrote as well.
But since Bush was able to go to war with the votes and funding of the congress, your argument falls flat. I could even go a step further and blame this whole mess on Clinton for not dealing with Bin Laden in the 90s.
You can come up with a better argument than that.
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
RF's just set in previous ways & reluctant to change & new things.
We do pay salaries to people, whether we use them or not. Attorneys (Public defenders), granted, they're not the best lawyers who graduate top of the class, but they're basically government staffed & people have the right (Miranda right) to them. Something similar could be done to help Dr's pay off student loans, have them work in the public sector for 4 years or something & forgive 50% of their loans or whatever.
Also, police, fire & rescue, EPA, zoning comissions, Licensing & Inspections etc.. Whether or not we use them, we're paying for it. People also forget that Electricity & (home heating) Gas is regulated... So that customers don't lose out & prices skyrocket. There's nothing Constitutional about it, it really isn't a "Right" any more than "Healthcare", but because it's already there & in place, people aren't adamantly opposed to it.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
Laws already exist that make vehicular manslaughter illegal. That is my point. If I hit someone with my car or do damage to someone's property, why I did it is not important. And on the issue of drunk driving, American's .08 alcohol limit is bullshit. .08 doesn't mean anything, it is an arbitray number. I would venture to say that my reflexes and alertness at .12 are superior to an elderly person or brand new driver. Every person is different and so their tolerance and in turn impairment from alcohol is different.
I did address your issue with the defense budget. Americans are represented through members of Congress. Congress determines and acts on what the defense budget is and what it should be allocated for. Congress authorized the war in Iraq and has consistently continued to fund the war. People who disagree with the use of their taxes for such use need to petition their congressman or elect one who shares their view. Americans also have the right to travel, so if they are unhappy with the American system or government, they are welcome to leave or work within the system to change it.
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
But since Bush was able to go to war with the votes and funding of the congress, your argument falls flat. I could even go a step further and blame this whole mess on Clinton for not dealing with Bin Laden in the 90s.
.
If the "Healthcare Bill" gets approved by Congress your arguement falls flat.
And Rumsfeld & his cronies went to Clinton in '97 to goto war in Iraq. Clinton refused. Once 9/11 happened, they had their opportunity. Look it up, this regime run by Neocons who could give a fuck less about you & me. They just like to market it that way with things like "Fiscal Conservative' "Strong on Terror" and "Pro-Life".
And typical Republican, trying to pass the blame. Take ownership in your own party. He's nearly causing another Great Depression.
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
Is that a real question or argument? If we follow that logic, then I should not be responsible for any programs institued by any politican I didn't vote for. So any bill not voted on or created by Ohio's two senators or the 6th congressional district allows me to claim exemption. And since I didn't vote for one of those senators, I guess I don't have to follow any bill he wrote as well.
But since Bush was able to go to war with the votes and funding of the congress, your argument falls flat. I could even go a step further and blame this whole mess on Clinton for not dealing with Bin Laden in the 90s.
You can come up with a better argument than that.
You're turning it around now, probably because of the wording of the question. Put more bluntly: why is it ok to tax everyone for the defense budget and not for a national health care budget? Why is everyone forced to pay for the service of defense (although they might think they don't need it), and why is it then wrong to tax everyone for the service of health care (although they might think they don't need it).
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
RF's just set in previous ways & reluctant to change & new things.
We do pay salaries to people, whether we use them or not. Attorneys (Public defenders), granted, they're not the best lawyers who graduate top of the class, but they're basically government staffed & people have the right (Miranda right) to them. Something similar could be done to help Dr's pay off student loans, have them work in the public sector for 4 years or something & forgive 50% of their loans or whatever.
Also, police, fire & rescue, EPA, zoning comissions, Licensing & Inspections etc.. Whether or not we use them, we're paying for it. People also forget that Electricity & (home heating) Gas is regulated... So that customers don't lose out & prices skyrocket. There's nothing Constitutional about it, it really isn't a "Right" any more than "Healthcare", but because it's already there & in place, people aren't adamantly opposed to it.
There is a fundamental difference between a right to a lawyer and to medical care. The primary difference being that the lawyer exists under the legal/government realm. You are forced to abide by the legal system. Therefore, you have a right found by the Supreme Courth authorized by our constitution to a lawyer. But that right is not absolute. The right to a lawyer only exists if you can not afford one. And as you stated, all lawyers are not equal and in your opinion, most public defenders are substandard.
Medical care is not under the realm of government control. You don't have to goto a doctor schooled in western medicine if you choose not to. And the public does provide emergency medical care for those unable to afford it. Plenty of free clinics exist for all major medical needs.
But what you're advocating for is equal healthcare for all, which by your own statements is not similar to the legal system as all lawyers are not equal.
All the other services you mentioned exist in form of property protection and under the contract clause Locke describes. You are unable to enforce the law and put out fires on your own, so a portion of your taxes go to provide these public services.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
Randall Flagg wrote:Is that a real question or argument? If we follow that logic, then I should not be responsible for any programs institued by any politican I didn't vote for. So any bill not voted on or created by Ohio's two senators or the 6th congressional district allows me to claim exemption. And since I didn't vote for one of those senators, I guess I don't have to follow any bill he wrote as well.
But since Bush was able to go to war with the votes and funding of the congress, your argument falls flat. I could even go a step further and blame this whole mess on Clinton for not dealing with Bin Laden in the 90s.
You can come up with a better argument than that.
You're turning it around now, probably because of the wording of the question. Put more bluntly: why is it ok to tax everyone for the defense budget and not for a national health care budget? Why is everyone forced to pay for the service of defense (although they might think they don't need it), and why is it then wrong to tax everyone for the service of health care (although they might think they don't need it).
Because the national defense is an enumerated right in the US Constitution. Health care isn't
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
Such policies are already going into affect by banning smoking and trans fat in foods.
This is one of the best laws my local government has ever imposed. I can't goto bars in the suburbs anymore, can't stand the smoke. Oddly enough, it didn't bother me as much before they passed the bill, but now that most places I visit can't allow smoking I'm 110% for it.
Freedom means the ability to make choices on your own without permission from others.
Kinda like abortion.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
Randall Flagg wrote:But since Bush was able to go to war with the votes and funding of the congress, your argument falls flat. I could even go a step further and blame this whole mess on Clinton for not dealing with Bin Laden in the 90s.
.If the "Healthcare Bill" gets approved by Congress your arguement falls flat.
And Rumsfeld & his cronies went to Clinton in '97 to goto war in Iraq. Clinton refused. Once 9/11 happened, they had their opportunity. Look it up, this regime run by Neocons who could give a fuck less about you & me. They just like to market it that way with things like "Fiscal Conservative' "Strong on Terror" and "Pro-Life".
And typical Republican, trying to pass the blame. Take ownership in your own party. He's nearly causing another Great Depression.
There is a fundamental difference between providing health care as a service and stating it as an unrealized right. If the US did pass legislation that created universal health care, I would have to abide by that system even if I didn't want it or my represenative voted against it.
I'm not going to get into an argument about the war. I was making a point that followed your logic; I didn't say I held that point as my own.
And please, I'm anything but a typical Republican.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Bush Asks Congress for $700 Billion Bailout
Randall Flagg wrote:Such policies are already going into affect by banning smoking and trans fat in foods.
This is one of the best laws my local government has ever imposed. I can't goto bars in the suburbs anymore, can't stand the smoke. Oddly enough, it didn't bother me as much before they passed the bill, but now that most places I visit can't allow smoking I'm 110% for it.
Randall Flagg wrote:Freedom means the ability to make choices on your own without permission from others.
Kinda like abortion.
Such bans are a violation of property owners rights. Just as I can't tell you what to permit and deny in your home, you shouldn't be able to tell me what I can allow or deny in my privately owned business. Tom's bar isn't a place you need to go or have a right to enjoy. If Tom wants to cater to smokers as his clientele, he should be able to. No one is forcing you to enter that establishment. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the authority to outlaw it. I don't like rap music and find it offensive, should I be able to pass a law that bans rap from public businesses?
And on the abortion issue, that itself begs many questions. And to debate that would require many many hours of debate and the assumption you're read up on the numerous court cases that have dealt with it. I am pro-choice or better put, I support the abortion of unwanted children that would grow-up in poor homes and serve as a burden to society. But their is a fundamental problem with abortion that no one has been able to answer. All Americans have a right to life as defined by our laws. The question remains, when does one become a human being and thus an American protected by those laws. Or better articulated, when does a fetus become a baby. Any answer your provide me will be arbitray, so the only valid answer is really conception. You could of course go the opposite route and say when it's capable of thought and feeling, but that would mean 3-4 months after it is born and I don't know if your or the public would want to endorse infanticide. I agree that I have problems coming to my conclusion on this subject. But in the original Roe v. Wade, the standard for life was when the baby could survive outside the womb. With the increase in technology, that could soon be as soon as conception occurs.
