11-15-2013 08:18 PM
419 ... 7891011 ...
tools
  1. A895's Avatar
    At first I started to just do a quick reply, but then as I got more and more into your post that changed...

    No one cared about the validity or necessity of stand your ground law(s) until the recent trial of George Zimmerman. If you feel that stand your ground laws are not necessary or are unfair you may want to Google roderick scott christopher cervini

    But according to you, unless I am at home I have no right to self defense. FYI: I always carry a sidearm, and I almost always open carry.

    You want to tax someone more simply because of their chosen profession?

    Abortion is already legal in the US. (not sure where you live though)

    Obviously you have never tried to obtain an automatic weapon, or have very little knowledge of firearms.

    Now you want to increase the salary of teachers "somehow". I know single mothers that struggle just to get by on 2 jobs, and they still need help from month to month from friends and family members.

    Last I checked it's up to the individual (entertainers included) to decide how much of their income they save (sit on).

    Keeping drones is a very bad idea, they are an invasion of my right to privacy. The government has no business knowing where I go, who I visit etc.

    Please read or re-read 1984.
    Entertainers make millions they can spare some more for the economy/taxes.

    Teachers are the one who teach the next generation. Song you think they deserve to have a slightly higher pay?

    Abortion is illegal partly in Georgia. Its hard to have one, I know that.

    Drones could potentially cut down on crimes that would otherwise go on unsolved I think.

    You can defend yourself. But killing someone is took far. Never reach the last resort unless you can find alternatives. Beat the sh*t out of them, you don't have to kill anyone.

    Posted via Droid RAZR M on the Android Central App
    08-15-2013 08:37 PM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    So unless you are at home you have no right to self defense?
    I'd say I think that my opinion is that rights to self defense (of yourself, your family, innocent people and to some extent property) are absolute, but they don't shirk mutual responsibility for other circumstances.

    For example, if you get into an altercation with someone and they attack your spouse, you have every right in the world to defend her and yourself from attack. However, if that defense results in a fatality or injury, the original conflict may still result in legal ramifications (assault, manslaughter, etc) for the result, but your right to defense is not what you're being charged with (if charged); it's any culpability in the events that could have been avoided to prevent it that the system should be focused on.

    No one is saying you should stand there and let someone murder you or your family, etc. What they're asking for is for people to avoid creating situations where the right to defense is necessary. So if you're armed and not doing anything wrong, illegal, etc. and someone attacks you, defend, you're good. If you start a fight with someone and decide to shoot them, you're a jerk. But that'd be the same case if you started a fight and decided not to shoot them.
    A895 and Fairclough like this.
    08-15-2013 09:09 PM
  3. bclinger#IM's Avatar
    The goal of Obamacare is single payer.

    Sent from my Note 8.
    08-15-2013 09:15 PM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    The goal of Obamacare is single payer.

    Sent from my Note 8.
    If that were true it'd be astoundingly supported by the public, destroyed by corporations and their congressmen and we'd never have heard of it. If that were the goal, he resoundingly scored a point for the other team, giving a guaranteed customer base, eternal cash flows and an illusion of choice based oligopoly to a giant insurance cartel that already controls over 12% of the economy and stands to gain billions and billions from this legislation.

    The reason that this plan was hated when it was a neo corporatist conservative plan in the 70's and 80's was because it concentrates power in corporations and removes "the market" from play in the capitalistic model. When passed in MA this was the far right opposition to the single payer model, however in the larger context of "the conservative" movement on the national "primary" stage, it was too inclusive to exist in a dog-eat-poorer-dog society.

    The plan that was built in the 90's would have instilled single payer, however it was publicly destroyed by the media arm before ever receiving a read by committee. Single payer will never happen as long as the insurance companies, which also happen to be the same folks running the defense, media, education and financial industries, own the capital hill agenda. If single payer was the goal, I'd state that not a single person on the team writing it knew that, because they were running in exactly the opposite direction.
    08-15-2013 09:25 PM
  5. bclinger#IM's Avatar
    What happens when the insurance companies are unable to make a profit? Look at the rate increases many people are looking at. Failed insurance companies result in single payer. You also missed Dirty Harry's goal statement recently announced. The link:

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013...eventual-sing/

    Sent from my Note 8.
    08-15-2013 09:29 PM
  6. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Entertainers make millions they can spare some more for the economy/taxes.

    Teachers are the one who teach the next generation. Song you think they deserve to have a slightly higher pay?

    Abortion is illegal partly in Georgia. Its hard to have one, I know that.

    Drones could potentially cut down on crimes that would otherwise go on unsolved I think.

    You can defend yourself. But killing someone is took far. Never reach the last resort unless you can find alternatives. Beat the sh*t out of them, you don't have to kill anyone.

    Posted via Droid RAZR M on the Android Central App

    While Phil Micholson (sp) isn't an entertainer he is a pretty decent golfer. This year he is expected to pay almost 50% of his income from winnings in taxes. At what point do we tax the successful enough?

    I think teachers like everyone else should get paid based on job performance.

    Please provide more information on where abortion is illegal, links preferred. Difficult to obtain is not the same as illegal.

    As for drones cutting down on crimes that might otherwise go unsolved and actually towards the entire issue of drones, etc. I tend to agree with Benjamin Franklin on the issue. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." From this link Benjamin Franklin - Wikiquote

    Once again we disagree on how far is far enough to defend yourself in that type of situation.

    There is no way for you or anyone else to decide how far I had to go to defend myself during that situation because you were not in it I was. You and a million other people can say well if it was me I would have done this or I wouldn't have done that. But the truth is you weren't there.

    I will always choose to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
    08-15-2013 09:38 PM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    Entertainers make millions they can spare some more for the economy/taxes.
    How much is the proper income for each entertainer?

    Teachers are the one who teach the next generation. Song you think they deserve to have a slightly higher pay?
    Assuming they are providing a quality education and providing the us with world class scholars, yes.

    Drones could potentially cut down on crimes that would otherwise go on unsolved I think.
    Even if true, not worth it. However, I doubt it to be true. We already live in a world with cameras, microphones and digital tracking everywhere, yet crimes still go unsolved. How is it more effective to have those cameras and microphones flying around? We want a MORE free society, not a more monitored society. L2R is right on this one, the government has no business being in your business unless you are actually breaking the law, and they should have a warrant if they want to get into your business.

    You can defend yourself. But killing someone is took far. Never reach the last resort unless you can find alternatives. Beat the sh*t out of them, you don't have to kill anyone.
    Having been in combat theaters, trained with military from three countries and taught self defense for the past 17 years, I think your initial sentiment here is in the right place, but it's reaching the wrong conclusion. You want to avoid situations where you have to defend yourself, however once in that situation you want to do exactly what is necessary to defend. The circumstances dictate the response. In some cases that means deflect and evade, and in some cases it means counter attack.
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-15-2013 09:39 PM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    What happens when the insurance companies are unable to make a profit? Look at the rate increases many people are looking at. Failed insurance companies result in single payer. You also missed Dirty Harry's goal statement recently announced. The link:

    Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system - Las Vegas Sun News

    Sent from my Note 8.
    That's his party's stated goal long term in that regard, so he's expected to spin things in that context. I guess I'm suggesting that one could look at the results rather than the talking points. The most positive thing about the healthcare act is that everyone (or near enough to) is able to get coverage. The obvious result of which is that insurance companies have guaranteed income for life. Given that insurance companies also control market pricing to a large extent, if they fail to be profitable I'd suspect a major scandal. Having their profits trimmed to a 20% gross margin is not putting anyone in danger of going under.
    08-15-2013 09:50 PM
  9. Live2ride883's Avatar
    From a post on FB thru a friend.

    NBC Proclaims- Negative Obamacare Effects 'From Maine to California'? by Guy Benson.The only surprise here is the source. The details are all too familiar:

    Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers hours below 30 a week because they cant afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. To tell somebody that youve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me, said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. I know the impact Im having on some of my employees. Goodridge said hes cutting the hours of 50 workers to no more than 29 a week so he wont trigger the provision in the new health care law that requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work 30 hours or more per week...The White House dismisses such examples as "anecdotal." Jason Furman, chairman of the presidents Council of Economic Advisors, said, We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having an adverse impact on job growth or the number of hours employees are working. [S]ince the ACA became law, nearly 90 percent of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions.

    That claim is hard to square with this recent analysis reported by McClatchy:

    The jobless rate is based on a sample of self-reporting from ordinary people across the nation, and its the Labor Department measure that shows a very troubling trend in hiring. Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work, said Keith Hall, a senior researcher at George Mason Universitys Mercatus Center. That is really remarkable. Hall is no ordinary academic. He ran the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that puts out the monthly jobs report, from 2008 to 2012. Over the past six months, he said, the Household Survey shows 963,000 more people reporting that they were employed, and 936,000 of them reported theyre in part-time jobs.
    It seems that someone is wildly distorting the numbers. Either it's the man who ran the non-partisan BLS for half-a-decade, or it's the Obama White House. Gee. Back to the NBC news piece, which includes strong push-back against the administration's "anecdotal evidence" claim from a both labor union and the network's own findings:
    But the president of an influential union that supports Obamacare said the White House is wrong. "It IS happening," insisted Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has 1.2 million members. "Wait a year. You'll see tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced. The facts are already starting to show up. Their statistics, I think, are a little behind the time." In a letter to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, Hansen joined other labor chieftains in warning that the ACA as presently written could destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the middle class. NBC News spoke with almost 20 small businesses and other entities from Maine to California, and almost all said that because of the new law theyd be cutting back hours for some employees an unintended consequence of the new law.
    Among the people who could be hit by future hour cuts are public school teachers and other workers. Many small businesses are being forced to make major, costly decisions about employees' coverage without all the facts, leading to widespread uncertainty. It's no wonder that 41 percent of small business owners told Gallup that they've instituted a hiring freeze. Another 19 percent have actually shed jobs "as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act." Will the White House sneer at this data as "anecdotal," too? Of course federal workers want no part of this law. I'll leave you with two Obamacare-related items: (1) Fox News' Chris Stirewalt dredges up this classic quote from the president, from when he was pushing the law back in 2010:

    We can't have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people. And they will keep on doing this for as long as they can get away with it.

    Stirewalt argues -- as I did yesterday -- that the administration's new cost-cap delay "works better for insurance companies than it does for the American people." Temporarily, at least. He goes on to lay out how the recent string of extra-legal Obamacare carve-outs, delays and suspensions have benefited the "wealthy and well-connected." And no one's better connected than Congress itself. (2) Obamacare defenders will eagerly point to a new study showing that nearly half of those Americans who will purchase insurance on the individual market under the law will qualify for federal subsidies. Great. First of all, subsidies cost taxpayers money. Those credits don't magically appear, which is why this law is projected to increase deficits by trillions. Also, the 48 percent stat means that a majority won't receive help as costs spike -- and some of that 48 percent subset won't get significant enough assistance to offset premium increases -- especially those who've been dumped from employer-based plans to the individual market. Which brings me to my final point: This is a reminder that Obamacare will neither allow people to keep their existing arrangement (as they were promised repeatedly), nor will it reduce family costs by $2,500 per family (another infamous vow). The best the Left can offer is, "but almost half of you will get some government money!" Pop the cork, America.
    08-15-2013 09:53 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    We can't have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people. And they will keep on doing this for as long as they can get away with it.
    Notice the double quotes, indicating statement is from source material, not L2R's opinion....

    This quote is exactly the problem with it (an insurance company driven healthcare system). It's a project for, of and by the insurance industry and only works in favor of the people so long as it is either forced to by regulation or allowed to by the insurance company's willingness to forgive near profits for sustainability.

    We've talked before about the unemployment as a paradigm that is irreconcilable with a technological arc even in the short term and disastrous as the crumbling foundation of long term strategy. If more companies do make the choice to sacrifice the wellbeing of their employees in order to bolster their own personal checkbooks (which they obviously will), then unemployment and underemployment travels even further down the path to epidemic with no plan even being contemplated on how to step off the crash that comes from the eradication of disposable income for the working class. Remember, with every increase in under employment, competition becomes steeper for all of those 29 hour a week minimum wage jobs giving more power to those offering the 29 hour a week jobs and stripping all power from those seeking the "gift" of a job. This will accelerate.
    08-15-2013 10:02 PM
  11. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Personally I think the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), if it is going to be discussed should have it's own thread.
    08-15-2013 10:07 PM
  12. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    As far as healthcare goes, nothing the government has ever ran has worked. I'm also tired of hearing some people don't get treated. My wife works at a hospital and no one can be turned away. If I have 250 million in cash does anyone honestly believe I'll get treated 250 million times better than anyone else?

    Look around. In the us, people are mostly f.o.s. they can afford internet, vehicle payment, iPhone, cable/satellite TV, manicures, but can't afford healthcare. Think I'm wrong? We have an obesity problem among our poor. Over 50% of our nation takes some form of govt subsidy. Does anyone honestly believe that there is over 50% of our nation that is handicap or down on their luck?

    We need govt help you say. Do we? After hurricane sandy, people were interviewed and said they received more help from volunteers. We pop out the government tit and people never ween off of it. They want more.

    As far as what I'd do if I were President, I'd quit giving other countries money, especially the ones that don't like us.

    Its honestly quite funny. They can burn our flag, but they won't burn our money.


    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    08-15-2013 10:37 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    Day One: I'd close the doors. Everyone can gtfo.
    Day Two: Rename President to Emperor, hire Darth Vader
    Day Three: Kill all the rebels.
    Day Four: Margaritas
    Now you all understand this ^^
    08-15-2013 10:39 PM
  14. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    One other thing. I would take the money out of Washington. No more lobbying. I would veto any bill that was written for one thing and 1000 pages later gives money to 30 other things the bill wasn't written for.

    If you want to change Washington, you have to take the money out of it.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Aquila likes this.
    08-15-2013 11:10 PM
  15. A895's Avatar
    While Phil Micholson (sp) isn't an entertainer he is a pretty decent golfer. This year he is expected to pay almost 50% of his income from winnings in taxes. At what point do we tax the successful enough?

    I think teachers like everyone else should get paid based on job performance.

    Please provide more information on where abortion is illegal, links preferred. Difficult to obtain is not the same as illegal.

    As for drones cutting down on crimes that might otherwise go unsolved and actually towards the entire issue of drones, etc. I tend to agree with Benjamin Franklin on the issue. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." From this link Benjamin Franklin - Wikiquote

    Once again we disagree on how far is far enough to defend yourself in that type of situation.

    There is no way for you or anyone else to decide how far I had to go to defend myself during that situation because you were not in it I was. You and a million other people can say well if it was me I would have done this or I wouldn't have done that. But the truth is you weren't there.

    I will always choose to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
    Lovely points. But getting paid on performance is a terrible idea. The idea of performance pay, was brought up in my old city Rochester, NY. We had a discussion with my AP history teacher, and he explained that paying based on performance results in bribery, lies on kids results on tests and other things. If not even that, if students do bad and the teacher is actually pretty good (which happens more than you think) then they are not getting fair pay. I had several teachers who were good but, students didn't understand it well failed some, and blamed the teacher when they are the ones who should have done more to understand more, and pass.

    Posted via Droid RAZR M on the Android Central App
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-16-2013 01:13 AM
  16. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    The only fair way to tax is a fair tax or flat tax. One man buys a yacht for $300, 000 and another buys a boat for $3, 000. Both parties pay 23%. Therefore the man buying the yacht pays considerably more in taxes and both parties have say in how they pay their taxes. Also, anyone who is a consumer (everyone) pays taxes. If you spend money, you pay taxes.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-16-2013 08:42 AM
  17. Fairclough's Avatar
    I would give myself delegated legislative power over most sections of law

    In other words the ability to make laws without a judge or parliament or senate approval. Winning.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-20-2013 11:27 PM
  18. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I would give myself delegated legislative power over most sections of law

    In other words the ability to make laws without a judge or parliament or senate approval. Winning.

    Posted via Android Central App
    This is where we are going now with our current president. He is already sidestepping congress and picking and choosing what laws to enforce and when. He is basically a dictator. No one person should ever have that kind of power.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    08-21-2013 08:13 AM
  19. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    This is where we are going now with our current president. He is already sidestepping congress and picking and choosing what laws to enforce and when. He is basically a dictator. No one person should ever have that kind of power.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    That is why our government is set up the way it is. Our forefathers knew what it was like when one man had too much power when they left England.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    08-21-2013 08:20 AM
  20. Fairclough's Avatar
    Actually most countries have delegated legislative power. Parliament and senate cannot have the time to deal with the minor rules or the expertise.

    It means a group or a person is give the power to pass rules without the parliament in sections of the law. This power is enacted through a legislature through parliament. Any legislation done by parliament can be undone. Laws still require a lower and upper house to pass them, with a royal consent. If its unconstitutional the high court steps in.

    For example. My university, under the 1911 University of Western Australia delegated legislation act has the authority to create rules e.g parking on the campus which is equal and enforceable by the crown for the operation of the campus.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-21-2013 06:27 PM
  21. Fairclough's Avatar
    You do know your legal system is still based on the English legal system right? Hence why your law schools like Harvard teaches their 19th century law.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-21-2013 06:29 PM
  22. mysticmeg's Avatar
    Everyone is aware that laws require Congress to pass them and that the President has very little power in getting them to do so? Making this or that illegal will be very difficult without having Congress on your side. That's why I chose to be Emperor.
    Makes sense.

    Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2
    Aquila likes this.
    08-21-2013 07:34 PM
  23. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    You do know your legal system is still based on the English legal system right? Hence why your law schools like Harvard teaches their 19th century law.

    Posted via Android Central App
    True...but certain things are different to protect the people. Like allowing one individual to decide the direction of the country.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-22-2013 08:16 AM
  24. SteveISU's Avatar
    The goal of Obamacare is single payer.

    Sent from my Note 8.

    The goal was nothing more than to create another political third rail that no one will touch, get enough americans in that system and you've locked in their vote (see SS and Medicare). When reforms are needed because it's insolvent, some liberal will be pointing at his opponent saying "He want's to take away your healthcare". Look at any mention of Medicare reform. Even when the plan clearly states it won't affect anyone over 55, there's the other side pumping out commercials of a little white haired bitty getting shoved over a cliff. Obamacare was nothing more than an attempt to secure votes.

    You want to fix healthcare:

    1. Mandatory National insurance for everyone. Everyone must purchase it, no excuses, take it out of the employers hands. If your employers contribution to your health benefits is 10K a year, they hand you the 10K to purchase insurance. If you purchase a plan for 6K, the other 4K is taxed. Then maybe someone will understand the real cost of their healthcare.

    2. Patients need to wake the hell up! 99.9% of patients don't ask how much anything costs, and they can care less as long as their insurance covers it. That mentality is why premiums have skyrocketed over the last 10yrs. You are handing a doctor a blank check. Someone who everyone believes "has your best interest in mind", but also has to make a living on anything he/she can bill for. "As long as my insurance covers it" is a common phrase I hear from patients.

    3. Insurance companies cannot profit off of the National plans, people are free to purchase supplemental insurance and companies can compete for your business and profit off of those.

    4. Tort Reform. It's not the lawsuits or settlements that drive up cost (they are less than 1%), it's the defensive medicine that it practiced to no end so that no one gets sued.

    5. Make co-pays $50. Then maybe people will stop going to the doctor every time they get a cold and expect an antibiotic for which it does nothing for a virus.

    If anyone thinks a government who can't run or fund SS or Medicare correctly (and we're talking for services used by less than 15% of the population) can run a national healthcare plan, I'll have what your smoking. Everyone wants top notch healthcare, the best they can get, but no one wants to pay for it. I would argue that the vast majority of Americans take more out of it then they put into it over their lifetime.
    08-22-2013 11:49 PM
  25. bclinger#IM's Avatar
    Why does the government have to get involved? It does not work anywhere tried.

    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4
    08-23-2013 12:05 AM
419 ... 7891011 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Any way to use TMobile LTE on the note?
    By apeterson93 in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-10-2016, 10:33 AM
  2. The good, the bad...and the brick
    By CarlosSpiceyW in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-18-2013, 03:22 PM
  3. Handcent SMS and other recipients of a message
    By dlfreeland3665 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 07:37 PM
  4. First Pics and Probable Release Date of New Nexus 7
    By RichardRight in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2012)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 07:01 PM
  5. Loss of connection with no signs of failure?
    By Rcrdude64 in forum Sprint
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 04:11 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD