SCOTUS upholds strip-search on arrest.

[Beretta92FSLady]

Why can't we cut taxes for everybody, cut off most services for everybody, and fund a modest military tasked with the proper function of defending the borders of the United States?

It is not an all or nothing proposition, you know.

I agree, it is not an "all or nothing proposition."

 

[ManInBlack]

I never stated that we would have 'good results.'

You can conclude that Liberals are not interested in fixing anything; and I can conclude that neither party is interested in fixing anything.

Liberals are interested in fixing their pet issues, engaging in social engineering, and exerting ever-increasing control on the population by stealing and utilizing the property of others. Unfortunately, their pet issues tend to have causes that no amount of stolen property can fix, while their social engineering and control efforts run directly over the rights of the productive class of citizenry.

When more people learn this, we can better deal with liberals appropriately. They are aggressive, panhandling addicts, trying to get THEIR FIX of government with MY money. They should be dealt with the same way, a loud and resounding "NO!"

 

[Tawnos]

I disagree. Cut our defense budget, significantly.Take for-profit insurance out of the private sector. Just those two things alone would save a significant amount of money.

You get your own opinions. You don't get your own facts.

From here, if you could somehow cut 100% of the department of defense's discretionary funding, you would still be 762 billion dollars short. Taking on insurance is an expense, not a source of revenue, so there's no way taking it on would decrease budgetary pressure.

Use that budget link and try proposing a realistic model. Try making the budget work without increasing marginal tax rates across the middle class.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Liberals are interested in fixing their pet issues, (1)engaging in social engineering, and exerting ever-increasing control on the population by (2)stealing and utilizing the property of others. Unfortunately, their pet issues tend to have causes that no amount of stolen property can fix, while their social engineering and control efforts run directly over the rights of the productive class of citizenry.

When more people learn this,(3) we can better deal with liberals appropriately. They are aggressive, panhandling addicts, trying to get THEIR FIX of government with(4) MY money.(5) They should be dealt with the same way, a loud and resounding "NO!"

(1)Social Engineering is inherent in Government.

(2)Taxation is not property theft.

(3)I am interested to know what a more appropriate way is; please, enlighten us.

(4)It's not your money, money is made-up--money is us treating a thing that has no inherent value as a thing that does.

(5)Back-tracking a bit on # (3) I see.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You get your own opinions. (1)You don't get your own facts.

From here, if you could somehow cut 100% of (2)the department of defense's discretionary funding, you would still be 762 billion dollars short.(3) Taking on insurance is an expense, not a source of revenue, so there's no way taking it on would decrease budgetary pressure.

Use that budget link and try proposing a realistic model. (4)Try making the budget work without increasing marginal tax rates across the middle class.

(1)None of us get 'facts'. We get angles.

(2)I wasn't only referring to the Military's discretionary funding.

(3)I never stated that insurance is a source of revenue, I stated that health Insurance ought to be not-for-profit.

(4)I say tax the piss out of the wealthy, cut the military budget, significantly, and take health insurance from the hands of private insurance companies. There is no point in delving deeper, we both know this, because what we will run into is back-and-forth, mile-long posts. Let's stick to generalizations, it will give us more time to do other important things, such as: baking cookies.

 

[ManInBlack]

(1)Social Engineering is inherent in Government.

Really? Then what is the problem with a government enforcing laws that make life difficult for homosexuals, with the intent of doing a little social engineering and "encouraging" them to adopt a different lifestyle. It must be OK, right, since 50%+1 a-holes in a room voted for it?

Your problem is that you, like most liberals, are a hypocrite. You seek freedom for yourself, but see nothing wrong with depriving others of life, liberty, or property to fulfill your ideas of what would make society better. What a creep.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Really? (1)Then what is the problem with a government enforcing laws that make life difficult for homosexuals, with the intent of doing a little social engineering and "encouraging" them to adopt a different lifestyle.(2) It must be OK, right, since 50%+1 a-holes in a room voted for it?

(3)Your problem is that you, like most liberals, are a (4)hypocrite.(5) You seek freedom for yourself, but see nothing wrong with depriving others of life, liberty, or property to fulfill your ideas of what would make society better. (6)What a creep.

(1)I never stated that the Government can't make life difficult for homosexuals. The premise is that being a homosexual is a "lifestyle," I reject that premise, unless you are to concede that your attraction to the opposite sex is a choice as well.

(2)Ah, but it can be a mandate if it is 50+1.

(3)And this whole time I thought I had more than merely one problem.

(4)Yes, I am a hypocrite.

(5)There is a difference between seeking so-called Freedom, receiving Freedom, and having Freedom.

(6)I have been called worse. Don't get all worked up over all of this back-and-forth; I am likely very wrong, and we will have a complete system collapse--we are all preparing for that anyhow, at least we all ought to be. Everything will work-out just fine, promise.

 

[OC for ME]

Honest is the best policy - when there is money in it. -- MT

Seeking, receiving and having is not the issue for liberals, it's the exercising part that they don't like....except for themselves.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Seeking, receiving and having is not the issue for liberals, it's the exercising part that they don't like....except for themselves.

Of course. That's why Liberals are arguing for Social Equality, while Conservative, and Religious Institutions are demanding that not all people be treated equally under laws.

It seems to me that both sides of the single political coin have their agenda, and are hell-bent on sticking to it. I support neither, both sides are pathetic.

 

[Tawnos]

(1)None of us get 'facts'. We get angles.

(2)I wasn't only referring to the Military's discretionary funding.

(3)I never stated that insurance is a source of revenue, I stated that health Insurance ought to be not-for-profit.

(4)I say tax the piss out of the wealthy, cut the military budget, significantly, and take health insurance from the hands of private insurance companies. There is no point in delving deeper, we both know this, because what we will run into is back-and-forth, mile-long posts. Let's stick to generalizations, it will give us more time to do other important things, such as: baking cookies.

1/2) You claimed that you'd be able to balance the budget by cutting the defense fund and publicizing insurance. Even at the full estimate of 24% of the budget being defense, you'd still be 300+ billion short of shoring up the deficit.

3) Moving health insurance to the government would only increase that budgetary shortfall.

4) I'm saying that such a plan, even in this general discussion, won't fix what you want. Ultimately, a more sound plan is one that acknowledges that America could be better in terms of its stability, long-term health, and continued economic prospects, but only if we get the debt under control, and provide the social stability which threatens the fabric of our nation. This involves shared financial sacrifice, cutbacks in programs such as defense, and a willingness to pursue solutions that put social progress first. It does not involve merely "taxing the piss out of the wealthy" or "cutting the defense budget." It's bigger than that.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

1/2) You claimed that you'd be able to balance the budget by cutting the defense fund and publicizing insurance. Even at the full estimate of 24% of the budget being defense, you'd still be 300+ billion short of shoring up the deficit.

3) Moving health insurance to the government would only increase that budgetary shortfall.

4) I'm saying that such a plan, even in this general discussion, won't fix what you want. Ultimately, a more sound plan is one that acknowledges that America could be better in terms of its stability, long-term health, and continued economic prospects, but only if we get the debt under control, and provide the social stability which threatens the fabric of our nation. This involves shared financial sacrifice, cutbacks in programs such as defense, and a willingness to pursue solutions that put social progress first. It does not involve merely "taxing the piss out of the wealthy" or "cutting the defense budget." It's bigger than that.

(1/2)Hold on there; I believe I stated "for starters," and spoke nothing to balancing the budget.

(3)I disagree, that is, if taxes are raised, as they ought to be.

(4)Unfortunately nothing is going to fix this problem. It seems the only solution is for a collapse. There is too much political maneuvering on both sides for anything substantive to get done.

What we are engaging in here is merely quazi-political masturbation. Austerity measures are working great in European States, I say, let's do that here, as many of you propose, but remember, we must live with the consequences of that position, just like any other position; I am up for anything.

 

[Tawnos]

What we are engaging in here is merely quazi-political masturbation. Austerity measures are working great in European States, I say, let's do that here, as many of you propose, but remember, we must live with the consequences of that position, just like any other position; I am up for anything.

Sarcasm?

 

[OC for ME]

<snip> Austerity measures are working great in European States, I say, let's do that here, as many of you propose, but remember, we must live with the consequences of that position, just like any other position; I am up for anything.

you do understand that 'austerity' is the opposite of most of your core beliefs.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

you do understand that 'austerity' is the opposite of most of your core beliefs.

You do realize that Austerity doesn't necessarily work?--that you are likely not going to be able to just cut your way out of what is a global problem. Like I stated, "I am up for anything"...so much for so-called 'core beliefs'.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

(1)I never stated that the Government can't make life difficult for homosexuals. The premise is that being a homosexual is a "lifestyle," I reject that premise, unless you are to concede that your attraction to the opposite sex is a choice as well.

If it isn't a lifestyle and isn't a choice yet it isn't an essential/fundamental part of your being what are you left with? YOu can't have your pie (cherry ) and eat it too!

I am not sure what you want me to respond to here.

(1)So, we agree, it is a cluster-f*ck. Whether it has to do with the Government, well, that is where we part-ways. The Federal Government is not taking any more Power, the Federal Government already has the Power.

No this is your modern positivistic viewpoint that is contrary to the founders viewpoint of this government. Lacking any support for your suppositions. The federal government only has the power we give it unfortunately the last few generations have sacrificed liberty for a sense of safety and have sacrificed both.

(2) Socialist does not necessarily equal Positivist. We are in this mess for a number of reasons. Giving food-stamps to poor people isn't high on the list, IMO.

But you can't have socialism without Positivism. You can't have it without force either. I didn't bring up food stamps but it is a cog in the wheel. And fits well into my example. Are you going to go rob your neighbor at gun point if you are hungry?

(3)Then let there be a fight; it's just part of the process. HealthCare is an Interstate Commerce issue, IMO.--by extension, I suppose one could argue that food is as well.

Again I have showed you the true meaning of the "Commerce issue" and health care is not part of it. And if even in a twisted rationalized way that fascist/socialist interpret it, how can you mandate I buy it? Should I mandate what food you buy? What lovers you choose? That your kids should be raised in ancient aboriginal theology? That you shave all your body hair? How about female circumcision would that be ok to mandate?

There will be a fight there always is when a government keeps overreaching, especially with Americans no matter how brainwashed much of the population is there is enough that won't capitulate. But a fight isn't a good thing, and the process and aftermath is very unpredictable. History has shown us that most end up like French Revolution with heads rolling . I would much rather have reason prevail and people wake up to the fact that government isn't the answer and will not solve our woes.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

(snip) Austerity measures are working great in European States, I say, let's do that here...

(snip) You do realize that Austerity doesn't necessarily work?--

At least you're consistently inconsistent.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

At least you're consistently inconsistent.

I am inconsistent, but not in the case you pointed out. The reason: Sarcasm was used with your first example of my inconsistency. There are other, real inconsistencies floating around in my posts, you should draw from those.

BTW, it's nice to see you delving into these train-wrecks.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

If it isn't a lifestyle and isn't a choice yet it isn't an essential/fundamental part of your being what are you left with? YOu can't have your pie (cherry ) and eat it too!

I see where you have made your mistake: you associate my opinion that there is nothing Fundamental with Innateness. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I like pie, don't you?

Again I have showed you the true meaning of the "Commerce issue" and health care is not part of it. And if even in a twisted rationalized way that fascist/socialist interpret it, how can you mandate I buy it? Should I mandate what food you buy? What lovers you choose? That your kids should be raised in ancient aboriginal theology? That you shave all your body hair? How about female circumcision would that be ok to mandate?

Yes, you have shown me one version of a True Meaning. HealthCare is a National issue; the Commerce Clause deals with National issues. I suppose the Government could mandate the food I purchase (hmm, the FDA), and the Government, the Culture of Society has in the past coerced homosexuals into choosing lovers that they were not interested in (hmm, DOMA, hmm, so-called Sodomy Laws), hmm, State sanctioned sterilization for homosexuals). What of Aboriginal theology?; is it any different than the Christian theology that is pervasive in America? Some of these things are Cultural judgements. I do not support female circumcision, and would put a bullet in the idiots head that came to my door to circumcise any female in my home; I do question my judgement of what is "right," and "wrong" as it relates to other peoples cultures.

There will be a fight there always is when a government keeps overreaching, especially with Americans no matter how brainwashed much of the population is there is enough that won't capitulate. But a fight isn't a good thing, and the process and aftermath is very unpredictable. History has shown us that most end up like French Revolution with heads rolling . I would much rather have reason prevail and people wake up to the fact that government isn't the answer and will not solve our woes.

I think you mean to state that there will always be individuals who claim the Government is overreaching. Whether that is the case or not is, well, apparently a matter of perspective. And then you harken-back to the French Revolution; please, let's stick with the past hundred.

You, and me both would rather have Reason prevail, but you can only reach a non-violent end by consensus. What is the mantra from the right, that: consensus is defeat. And it is working out so well. Welcome to The Lost Decade, The Great Stagnation.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

I am inconsistent, but not in the case you pointed out. The reason: Sarcasm was used with your first example of my inconsistency.

I will admit, I missed the sarcasm you mentioned. It's difficult sometimes to interpret without inflection.

There are other, real inconsistencies floating around in my posts, you should draw from those.

Naw, there are enough people drawing from your other contradictions.

BTW, it's nice to see you delving into these train-wrecks.

Normally I don't consider myself to have enough aspirin to chime in, not to mention I don't find it particularly useful, but I must have had a masochistic moment this morning :lol:

 

[OC for ME]

'Health Care' is not a national issue, health insurance is a national issue. Current federal law prohibits a hospital, emergency room, from denying 'health care' due to an inability to pay, or absence of health insurance by the patient.

Just as 'access' to birth control pills is not about access, but about money and lifestyle.

CNSNews.com confirmed, however, that the Target store at 3100 14th St., NW, in Washington, D.C., which is 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus, offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen. Target sells a month's supply of this birth control pill for just $9 to individuals without health insurance coverage for the pills.

A CVS pharmacy only two blocks from the Georgetown Law campus also sells a month's supply of the same generic birth control pills for $33.


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-p...h-control-pills-target-3-miles-georgetown-law

With the cost of beer in pubs, in Georgetown, Fluke could have bought six less beers a month and been able to afford the pill.

Where does this leave us?