11-14-2013 07:34 PM
749 ... 1011121314 ...
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    My guess is that 90% or more of legislatures do what they do under the assumption that it's the right thing to do and that it's also legal. Some adhere more to the spirit of laws, some to the processes, others to specific nuance.. their beliefs on what is right just coincide too closely with what the people who finance their campaigns best financial interests are. I do give them the benefit of the doubt that it's ignorance and subconscious greed and rat-like sycophant gravitation to stinky cheese that causes that correlation, rather than outright naked corruption.
    10-15-2013 08:35 AM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    This made me lol...the one in the Whitehouse? Lol

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    I mean, prior to being in politics he was MCL at Harvard Law and taught Constitutional law... I'd pretty much guarantee that he has a better understanding of the Constitution than the average Facebook troll. I don't agree with all, or maybe most, of his decisions, but I'd be willing to accept that he thinks they're legal and has a better understanding than me of what legal actually means. This would probably be a very perfect example of his interpretation of what's legal and not being different than yours, which is probably different than mine, etc. None of us are interpreting (probably) with the intention of harming the nation, so yeah that's pretty much point of view.
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    10-15-2013 08:42 AM
  3. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I mean, prior to being in politics he was magna-***-laude at Harvard Law and taught Constitutional law... I'd pretty much guarantee that he has a better understanding of the Constitution than the average Facebook troll. I don't agree with all, or maybe most, of his decisions, but I'd be willing to accept that he thinks they're legal and has a better understanding than me of what legal actually means. This would probably be a very perfect example of his interpretation of what's legal and not being different than yours, which is probably different than mine, etc. None of us are interpreting (probably) with the intention of harming the nation, so yeah that's pretty much point of view.
    I understand and respect that as your view. To me, the way he has delt with the ACA alone, changing parts of the law by word of mouth tells me he doesn't respect the constitution or office he holds. Thats just for starters.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    10-15-2013 08:45 AM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    I understand and respect that as your view. To me, the way he has delt with the ACA alone, changing parts of the law by word of mouth tells me he doesn't respect the constitution or office he holds. Thats just for starters.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Yep, I'm not a fan of ignoring the process and I honestly don't know enough about the legality of that specific action to comment much on it at all. I am willing to assert that he obviously thinks he already has or ought to have the power to do said actions, as evidenced by doing them.

    This is a tough area to speculate, because we obviously never find out a person's real motivations, but just like in your family or your office, a lot of times the story you write in your mind about why someone is late, or does something, etc. is much less benign than the actuality of it. Sometimes you're right, sometimes it's worse, but most of the time people aren't trying to specifically screw you with their actions and most of the time they think they're doing the right thing or they think the wrong they are doing is much more minor than it is perceived to be.

    It's like being cut off in traffic. That person isn't trying to hurt you, probably is dumb and didn't know you were there or exactly how close you all were to each other. Doesn't make their action right, but intent matters and even though we immediately tend to get angry with the individual for their disrespect and actions that endangered you, giving someone the benefit of the doubt on intentions can be somewhat relaxing, especially in a culture that's apparently based on "Christian values", like forgiveness and non-judgement.

    (This is not directed at you cdmjlt as an individual, quoting you for discussion reference but the comments are generic and intended to say only that it's difficult to accurately assess motivations out of context. I don't know anything about your personal attitudes or tendencies towards prejudgment relative to evidence, etc)

    An example, I had an assistant once that would show up for work 3-5 minutes late literally every day. I had quite a few conversations with her about it, she always apologized and said she'd work on being on time. Great analyst, but punctuality matters in a social dynamic as a sign of respect for the task, etc. We got to a point where I had to file a written complaint or "warning" and so HR and I were talking to her about it, she bursts into tears. It turns out she has an incredibly abusive boyfriend who knew she worked at 8 and so he wanted her to drop him off at his job at exactly 7:55 so that he knew she'd go straight to work and not be cheating on him, etc. She'd usually get to our lot by 8 but then had to park, come inside, coat check, etc and would be 3-5 minutes late to the office. He'd literally fly off the handle if she tried to drop him off early. She wasn't being disrespectful, she was trying not to be beaten. Easy fix for us, we ignored the "warning" and adjusted her start time to 8:15 every morning and gave her something like a 3% raise so that her paychecks would be the same even though she was working like 1/32 less hours per day/week/etc. My assumption was that she just couldn't manage time or didn't care about the request to be on time.
    10-15-2013 08:55 AM
  5. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Yep, I'm not a fan of ignoring the process and I honestly don't know enough about the legality of that specific action to comment much on it at all. I am willing to assert that he obviously thinks he already has or ought to have the power to do said actions, as evidenced by doing them.

    This is a tough area to speculate, because we obviously never find out a person's real motivations, but just like in your family or your office, a lot of times the story you write in your mind about why someone is late, or does something, etc. is much less benign than the actuality of it. Sometimes you're right, sometimes it's worse, but most of the time people aren't trying to specifically screw you with their actions and most of the time they think they're doing the right thing or they think the wrong they are doing is much more minor than it is perceived to be.

    It's like being cut off in traffic. That person isn't trying to hurt you, probably is dumb and didn't know you were there or exactly how close you all were to each other. Doesn't make their action right, but intent matters and even though we immediately tend to get angry with the individual for their disrespect and actions that endangered you, giving someone the benefit of the doubt on intentions can be somewhat relaxing, especially in a culture that's apparently based on "Christian values", like forgiveness and non-judgement.

    (This is not directed at you cdmjlt as an individual, quoting you for discussion reference but the comments are generic and intended to say only that it's difficult to accurately assess motivations out of context. I don't know anything about your personal attitudes or tendencies towards prejudgment relative to evidence, etc)

    An example, I had an assistant once that would show up for work 3-5 minutes late literally every day. I had quite a few conversations with her about it, she always apologized and said she'd work on being on time. Great analyst, but punctuality matters in a social dynamic as a sign of respect for the task, etc. We got to a point where I had to file a written complaint or "warning" and so HR and I were talking to her about it, she bursts into tears. It turns out she has an incredibly abusive boyfriend who knew she worked at 8 and so he wanted her to drop him off at his job at exactly 7:55 so that he knew she'd go straight to work and not be cheating on him, etc. She'd usually get to our lot by 8 but then had to park, come inside, coat check, etc and would be 3-5 minutes late to the office. He'd literally fly off the handle if she tried to drop him off early. She wasn't being disrespectful, she was trying not to be beaten. Easy fix for us, we ignored the "warning" and adjusted her start time to 8:15 every morning and gave her something like a 3% raise so that her paychecks would be the same even though she was working like 1/32 less hours per day/week/etc. My assumption was that she just couldn't manage time or didn't care about the request to be on time.
    I agree its difficult to know a persons motivation. But having studied law, he should know what's legal and not legal. You can't legally change a law by speaking it. To me that's black and white.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    10-15-2013 09:17 AM
  6. palandri's Avatar
    Stop listening to msnbc and reading random internet forums. Every group has their set of crazies. The movement as a whole is nothing more the cumulative frustration with the degrading of American society on many different fronts. They want to hold the government accountable and stop the uncontrolled spending and irresponsible policies. I don't know how anyone could be against what they want fundamentally. The physical means for accomplishing this will of course always be debated, but the goals involve making the government work for the people again and to hold the politicians accountable.
    I go to the source. If there's a conflict with Iran, I'll read the U.S. News and the Tehran Times, so I understand both sides. If there's a problem in dealings with Syria, I'll read the U.S. News and the Russian and Chinese news, so I understand both sides. I also read news from the right wing. I also listen to Alex Jones from time to time. I've even heard Rand Paul on the Alex Jones show. I've also read the Tea Party forums. Everyone wants accountability and stability. I know what the Tea Party represents and sad, but true, it's not main stream America.

    If the right wing held true to their beliefs that the government is bad, wasteful and screws everything up, they would also be advocating the elimination of the Army and promoting the hiring of private mercenaries.

    Once again, the root is Privately owned vs Publicly owned.
    10-15-2013 09:37 AM
  7. NoYankees44's Avatar
    If the right wing held true to their beliefs that the government is bad, wasteful and screws everything up, they would also be advocating the elimination of the Army and promoting the hiring of private mercenaries.

    Once again, the root is Privately owned vs Publicly owned.
    That would go under the category of what the private sector should not do for the simple reason of corruption and the potential sever side effects. However it would definitely be more efficient...

    Nothing is cut and dry. No one is arguing that the federal government is not necessary for the general welfare of the county. The argument is about the roles it should play and what limits it should have. Everything cannot be private just like everything cannot be public. Conservatives only argue that there should be significantly more private than public most areas.
    palandri and plumbrich like this.
    10-15-2013 09:57 AM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    ....Businesses and employers would be adding good, stable jobs, instead of slashing their numbers of positions and employee hours if they weren't being taxed to the bone.....
    Most small businesses are "S' corporations. The only taxes they pay are the taxes on payroll checks. They aren't taxed to the bone.

    Large corporations that leave the U.S. is due to cheaper labor overseas, not taxes. Look at Levi Strauss. They closed their last factory in San Antonio Texas due to $2 a day labor overseas. Why pay a U.S. seamstress that can make 20 pairs of jeans at $17 an hour, when you can go overseas and pay a person $2 a day that makes 10 pair of jeans an hour and works a 12 hour shift. That's why I question the patriotism of companies like Levi Strauss. I think companies like Levi Strauss should have their product banned from the U.S. marketplace.
    10-15-2013 09:59 AM
  9. palandri's Avatar
    That would go under the category of what the private sector should not do for the simple reason of corruption and the potential sever side effects. However it would definitely be more efficient...

    Nothing is cut and dry. No one is arguing that the federal government is not necessary for the general welfare of the county. The argument is about the roles it should play and what limits it should have. Everything cannot be private just like everything cannot be public. Conservatives only argue that there should be significantly more private than public most areas.
    Even though we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I have to give credit where credit is due. You discuss and debate the conservative position better than the professional politicians from the GOP.
    NoYankees44 likes this.
    10-15-2013 10:11 AM
  10. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    I must be misreading what you wrote, but I'm pretty sure you contradicted yourself in moving from the first part of your statement, about how the past was good, so we should decrease government spending, to the end, when you said that life is never safe and if you thought so you were "under the delusions of a happier youth".

    Soooo how do you know you didn't just think things were better back then? Do you have data to show that people changed jobs less, or that marriages were any more stable than they are now?

    I don't think the problem is as simple as decreasing debt by cutting government spending. What about the large corporations hat get away with paying next to nothing in taxes even though their profit margins are huge? Why can't we simply tax them more, and also use that money to enable decreased taxes for smaller companies, which could encourage growth and discourages monopolies?
    Where's the contradiction? My point is that life is never safe. It may seem so if nothing has ever threatened your existence or taken away your security, but life is not safe. Therefore the best anyone can do is live on their own power. The less dependent you are the better chance of preserving life and limb.

    As for the past, their was a very short time in the 50s and 60s when jobs were more stable.

    Sent from my C5170 via Tapatalk 2
    10-15-2013 11:26 AM
  11. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    I would question that, apparently in my city there is a few homeless people who were multi millionaires but blew their assets over investing, a worker at my school would of been homeless if his parents didn't take him back - he lost everything due to an addition (he was an economist and betted on our economy crashing - which it didn't but he did win on the other nations). The problem is when you become homeless its hard to work back up - how many people would want to employ a homeless person if they walked into their office? I bet very few.
    The people you mention sound as if they already had the internal ability to get back up. Where's the argument?

    Most homeless have addiction problems. There's help for them on every level that they don't have to pay for. The choice to use that help is theirs.

    If a previously "homeless" person has done the rehab, gotten job counseling and even training, and is still living in a group home at the time of the job interview or application how would you even know they'd been homeless?

    Sent from my C5170 via Tapatalk 2
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    10-15-2013 11:36 AM
  12. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    Most small businesses are "S' corporations. The only taxes they pay are the taxes on payroll checks. They aren't taxed to the bone.

    Large corporations that leave the U.S. is due to cheaper labor overseas, not taxes. Look at Levi Strauss. They closed their last factory in San Antonio Texas due to $2 a day labor overseas. Why pay a U.S. seamstress that can make 20 pairs of jeans at $17 an hour, when you can go overseas and pay a person $2 a day that makes 10 pair of jeans an hour and works a 12 hour shift. That's why I question the patriotism of companies like Levi Strauss. I think companies like Levi Strauss should have their product banned from the U.S. marketplace.
    In that case there'd be nothing left to buy here.

    When taxes are low and businesses have a growth environment that's incentive to manufacture here.

    Most Dems are willfully failing to see how the ACA is effecting businesses.

    Sent from my C5170 via Tapatalk 2
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    10-15-2013 11:48 AM
  13. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    There's a correlation between fiscal stability in a nation and government. The bigger government gets, the less fiscally stable a country becomes. Government interference in the private sector is an economy killer.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-15-2013 12:20 PM
  14. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    Devorce rates were lower - but that was the belief as women were more finniancially dependent on a man and could not leave.
    I agree - its nothing to with government spending at all, the reason jobs are less secure as companies are shifting to more a network approach, often a bit more flatter hierarchy and to have least 'core' (full time) workers and more networked (sub contractors / casuals etc) the reason this is a more favourable system to a company it allows them to be more dynamic and change with the market more. If the market moves from PC's to lets say tablets, they do both - they can downsize / scrap most of the PC department without the financial cost previously. It just allows them to shift and change to markets a lot quicker as the company grows they become more rigid and this ability to respond is significantly slowed down.
    Essentially the reason for this is big government and taxation. If the social programs weren't huge there'd be less taxation and more money for employees, and more job stability.

    Edit: I want to add that marriage was taken more seriously back then. The "progress" of women becoming single parents has done a lot to damage society. The children are more likely to grow up in poverty, etc. Yes, everyone knows exceptions to this, but given the choice wouldn't everyone rather grow up with a mother and a father, everything else being equal as to abuse rates? Nothing is perfect but there is a lot to be said for a stable, intact home environment.

    Sent from my C5170 via Tapatalk 2
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    10-15-2013 01:00 PM
  15. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    There's a correlation between fiscal stability in a nation and government. The bigger government gets, the less fiscally stable a country becomes. Government interference in the private sector is an economy killer.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    That's not true. Fiscal stability doesn't have much to do with the size of the government. It has to do with being able to balance the budget.

    Essentially the reason for this is big government and taxation. If the social programs weren't huge there'd be less taxation and more money for employees, and more job stability.

    Sent from my C5170 via Tapatalk 2
    Or we'd find other ways to spend the money. This is an overly simplistic statement that I would expect to see as a bullet point on a cable news network.
    10-15-2013 01:12 PM
  16. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    That's not true. Fiscal stability doesn't have much to do with the size of the government. It has to do with being able to balance the budget.



    Or we'd find other ways to spend the money. This is an overly simplistic statement that I would expect to see as a bullet point on a cable news network.
    As government grows, people become smaller. And yes it does, businesses grow when they can. The government just writes another appropriations bill that it can't afford. Regardless if there is money to do so. I say size is directly linked.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-15-2013 01:39 PM
  17. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    That's not true. Fiscal stability doesn't have much to do with the size of the government. It has to do with being able to balance the budget.



    Or we'd find other ways to spend the money. This is an overly simplistic statement that I would expect to see as a bullet point on a cable news network.
    It isn't simplistic, it's the way business works. When taxation is low, businesses make their jobs attractive to keep the best employees.

    They can pay higher wages, give bonuses, offer health insurance, offer pension plans, etc. That way they keep their best people, and stay competitive to make more money. Everyone is relatively happy.

    Government never met a tax it didn't like. Whether they think it will magically solve health care or someone's just curious about the facets of lesbian life, they'll figure out a way to spend your money.

    That's why we have to be vigilant about what people actually do once they get elected.

    Sent from my C5170 via Tapatalk 2
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    10-15-2013 02:04 PM
  18. JHBThree's Avatar
    Clean CR is a blank check. Not wanted my many, not needed. Changes in business as usual in spending needed. The dems want a blank check, then and now.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Moving the goalposts. You claimed the senate was the one preventing the government from operating when, in fact, it is the house, and HAS BEEN the house causing this. What you posted above is irrelevant to the post oft ours to which I was responding.
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    10-15-2013 02:07 PM
  19. JHBThree's Avatar
    There's a correlation between fiscal stability in a nation and government. The bigger government gets, the less fiscally stable a country becomes. Government interference in the private sector is an economy killer.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    There's also a correlation between size of government and other more serious issues, like civil unrest. The smaller a government becomes, the less stable society becomes.
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    10-15-2013 02:09 PM
  20. JHBThree's Avatar
    In that case there'd be nothing left to buy here.

    When taxes are low and businesses have a growth environment that's incentive to manufacture here.

    Most Dems are willfully failing to see how the ACA is effecting businesses.

    Sent from my C5170 via Tapatalk 2
    The ACA is completely separate from what's going on right now. It can't be affected by a government shutdown, and republicans are living on another planet if they thought shutting down the government would be a way to harm the ACA.

    Rookie mistake, and one that should (thankfully) end Ted Cruz's political career.
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    10-15-2013 02:11 PM
  21. JHBThree's Avatar
    Yet the tea party is the only group that 100% supports the constitution. They got out and showed support for the veterans. And they get attacked for that? Wow...

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    You mean they show boated and used veterans for their own political causes during a shutdown they're responsible for?

    Yeah, that's being REAL supportive.
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    10-15-2013 02:13 PM
  22. llamabreath's Avatar
    The smaller a government becomes, the less stable society becomes.
    Stats, facts to back this up?

    Sent via a pay phone at the gas station.
    10-15-2013 02:18 PM
  23. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    There's also a correlation between size of government and other more serious issues, like civil unrest. The smaller a government becomes, the less stable society becomes.
    You're almost making our point; the bigger government gets, the more oppressive it is. The less freedom to fight it.

    When government is smaller society is more prosperous. Civilized people generally cause no chaos. When chaos happens, a psychopath is behind it. And that happens all the time whether government is big or small. That's why it's pointless to think government is the answer.

    If someone has you cornered and is threatening your life, no one is going to be able to help you in time if you cannot help yourself. If government takes away your gun, you're out of luck. The psychopaths are going to have them anyway. Look at Chicago. And if they don't have guns they'll have machetes.

    Big government is only going to take freedom away from people who don't abuse it. Nothing has an effect on psychopaths.

    Sent from my C5170 via Tapatalk 2
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    10-15-2013 02:20 PM
  24. palandri's Avatar
    Stats, facts to back this up?

    •• Sent via a pay phone at the gas station.
    Somalia
    10-15-2013 02:26 PM
  25. llamabreath's Avatar
    Somalia
    That's it? One country out of 196?

    Sent via a pay phone at the gas station.
    10-15-2013 02:33 PM
749 ... 1011121314 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Changing battery's better to shutdown the S4?
    By Nuno Mota in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-02-2013, 12:15 PM
  2. 4.3 random shutdown
    By talsi_st in forum Google / Samsung Galaxy Nexus
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-21-2013, 12:45 AM
  3. samsung s4 shutdown "help"
    By Shatha816 in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-27-2013, 07:46 AM
  4. Government Notifications & the Skyrocket
    By SpringCTIL in forum Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 05:50 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD